Q3 - Legal theorist: It is unreasonable

[LSAT-Chang]

Could someone dissect the core for me on this one?
I had a hard time deciding which one was the conclusion among the two:

It is unreasonable to incarcerate anyone for any other reason than that he or she is a serious threat to the property or lives of other people.

OR

The breaking of a law does not justify incarceration

I thought the latter was the conclusion, but it turns out that the first one is the overall conclusion.

I tried using the therefore test, but I don't know why both structures seem right to me. ANy help would be great!!

[chike_eze]

Could someone dissect the core for me on this one?
I had a hard time deciding which one was the conclusion among the two:

It is unreasonable to incarcerate anyone for any other reason than that he or she is a serious threat to the property or lives of other people.

OR

The breaking of a law does not justify incarceration

I thought the latter was the conclusion, but it turns out that the first one is the overall conclusion.

I tried using the therefore test, but I don't know why both structures seem right to me. ANy help would be great!!

After reading the first sentence, what popped in my mind was "Why?" Why is the author making such a bold statement? I kept reading and everything else seemed to be supporting the strong claim in the first sentence.

My understanding of Argument:

Premise -> Intermediate Conclusion -> Conclusion

Free will + ignorance -> Breaking the law does not justify incarceration -> It is unreasonable to incarcerate anyone unless he/she is a serious threat to property/other lives

Your therefore test is on point.

It is unreasonable to incarcerate anyone unless he/she is a serious threat to property/other lives
Therefore,
Breaking the law does not justify incarceration

This doesn't fit. Breaking the law does not deserve incarceration because the only people that should be incarcerated are those who are serious threats?

Breaking the law does not justify incarceration
Therefore,
It is unreasonable to incarcerate anyone unless he/she is a serious threat to property/other lives

This fits. We should only incarcerate those who are serious threats, because just breaking the law does not justify incarceration

[LSAT-Chang]

Thanks so much for your help chikeeze!!

Your translation of "unless" to "only" statement helped a lot understanding the two sentences when put in to the "therefore" test.

[maryadkins]

Nice discussion! Also, the cool thing about this very thorny question is that you don't have to diagram the whole thing to get the right answer. You're asked about the first sentence. Read it, then try to place it in the argument without getting into the nitty gritty details. It's the conclusion! Scan and see that (C) is the only answer choice that mentions anything about a conclusion. There we go!

[csunnerberg13]

Can someone clarify the therefore test in this question?

To me, both possibilities work:

The breaking of a law does not justify incarceration.
Therefore,
It is unreasonable to incarcerate anyone unless he/she is a serious threat.

That is the correct interpretation, though I think the alternative is more explainable.

It is unreasonable to incarcerate anyone unless he/she is a serious threat.
Therefore,
The breaking of a law does not justify incarceration

Which translates to: Because we know that it is unreasonable to incarcerate anyone unless a serious threat, we know it is not enough to just break a law to justify incarceration.

I don't see the connection in the first circumstance so readily - can someone translate and explain why it's better?

[maryadkins]

Good question!

The way you've broken it down, the therefore test makes sense both ways to me, too. So let's find another tool to use. The breakdown below actually leaves out a key part--the premise used to support (what turns out to be) the intermediate conclusion. So what we actually have is:

Law breaking comes from ignorance or free choice and these don't justify incarceration, therefore:

The breaking of a law does not justify incarceration.
Therefore,
It is unreasonable to incarcerate anyone unless he/she is a serious threat.

When you have an extra premise that pops in to support one of your potential "conclusions," and that conclusion can then be used to support the other potential conclusion (that just stands on its own), it's a sign: the potential conclusion with the premise of its own is likely an intermediate one. Make sense?

[csunnerberg13]

Great thanks - the therefore test wasn't proving it to me, even though I had picked out the right conclusion. The reason you've stated makes me more confident in picking the conclusion I chose even when the therefore test seems to go either way. Thanks again

[KayM793]

Hello, I still think it is the reverse way that works?

"It is unreasonable to incarcerate anyone for any other reason than that he or she is a serious threat to the property or lives of other ppl." can be translated into "the only reason it is reasonable to incarcerate anyone is that she or he is a serious threat to..." , which is reasonable to incarcerate --> serious threat.

From the sentence of "lawbreaking proceeds either from ignorance of the law or of the effects of one’s actions, or from the free choice of the lawmaker," we know lawbreaking does not pose serious threat. -serious threat --> -reasonable to incarcerate. Because law breaking is not reasonable to incarcerate, the breaking of the law does not justify incarceration. So the 2nd sentence is the conclusion.

Help pleaseee??