LSAT PT 37 SECTION 2 Question 22 Forum

[Adinga]

Please can anyone help with this Preptest Question. I have an idea what the answer is but I took too much time. Please show me a quick way to do a question like this. Thanks.
LSAT PT 37 SECTION 2 Question 22

[Trajectory]

Well I dont know of a quick way to do this exactly but I would just break it down. I see these as a Strengthen Principle type. And treat it exactly as a Strengthen question. Just that the answer choice will most likely be some sort of principle, or close.

Many ppl believe that if the crime was motivated by sincere desire to achieve a larger good, the punishment for the crime should be mitigated.

Then it goes on to say that since motives are based on inconclusive evidence and even vicious motives can be made to seem altruistic, and concludes that judges should never mitigate punishment on the basis of motives.

So I guess we want an answer that strengthens the idea of judges not mitigating punishments because of not being able to determine someones motives.

A) Psychological states? Does that equal motives some how? I think we would have to jump through 1 too many hoops to get to that. Also, talking about what should and shouldnt be part of the legal system may be a little too far out there.

B) Pretty much it. Its a principle. It basically says that if a mistake is made in judging its better for it to be on the strict side (of punishment) than on the too lenient side. Its strengthening the conclusion and its a principle. Keep the answer.

C) I dont think whats legally permissible is in the scope of what the judges should do or shouldnt do. While it might be legally permissible, we wouldnt really know if it helps or not.

D) Enforcement of laws? No

E) Consequences of what would happen were not hinted at or discussed.

We are left with B!

Hopefully this could help! And if anyone feel like corrected things I messed up on go ahead!

[sighsigh]

Criminal motives can be presented as good motives.
---
Therefore, judges should never use good motives as a reason for reducing punishment.

This argument has an obvious flaw: just because good motives can be criminal motives in disguise, doesn't mean good motives are always criminal motives in disguise. Sometimes, good motives can be legitimate.

Presumably, the judge cannot tell case-by-case whether a good motive is legitimate or disguised, and so must make a decision to assume either all good motives are legit, or all good motives are disguised.
- If the judge considers all good motives as disguised, and so never uses good motives as a reason for reducing punishment, then he is stripping those with legitimately good motives of their right to get reduced punishment. In other words, he is punishing them harder than they should be.
- If the judge considers all good motives as legitimate, and so always uses good motives as a reason for reducing punishment, then he isn't assigning those with criminal motives disguised as good motives the punishment they deserve. In other words, he is punishing them more leniently than they should be.

As the conclusion states, the judge picks the former. He chooses punishing those harder than they should be over punishing those more leniently than they should be. This is what (B) states.

[Adinga]

Sighsigh, that was a really good explanation. That word "can" was key! I completely understand the question now. Wow! Thanks so much!
Thanks to you too, Trajectory. Yours was also an helpful explanation. Cheers!