Exam LSAT Section 1 Logical Reasoning topic 1 question 169 discussion

Actual exam question from Test Prep's LSAT Section 1 Logical Reasoning

Question #: 169
Topic #: 1

[All LSAT Section 1 Logical Reasoning Questions]

Legal theorist: 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. The breaking of a law does not justify incarceration, for lawbreaking proceeds either from ignorance of the law or of the effects of one's actions, or from the free choice of the lawbreaker. Obviously mere ignorance cannot justify incarcerating a lawbreaker, and even free choice on the part of the lawbreaker fails to justify incarceration, for free choice proceeds from the desires of an agent, and the desires of an agent are products of genetics and environmental conditioning, neither of which is controlled by the agent.
The claim in the first sentence of the passage plays which one of the following roles in the argument?

A. It is offered as a premise that helps to show that no actions are under the control of the agent.
B. It is offered as background information necessary to understand the argument.
C. It is offered as the main conclusion that the argument is designed to establish.
D. It is offered as evidence for the stated claim that protection of life and property is more important than retribution for past illegal acts.
E. It is offered as evidence for the stated claim that lawbreaking proceeds from either ignorance of the law, or ignorance of the effects of one's actions, or free choice.

Show Suggested Answer

Suggested Answer: C 🗳️
The question stem tells us we need to identify the purpose of the first sentence, so we need to put it in context. Standing alone, the first sentence could be a conclusion or evidence, but the rest of the stimulus makes its purpose clear. Sentence1 essentially says that the only reason to lock someone up is to prevent them from harming others/others property. Sentence 2 rules out lawbreaking alone as a justification, and sentence 3 elaborates on this point. So the last two sentences support the first by excluding another justification for locking people up. Therefore, the first sentence must be the conclusion, and thats what C. says.

by [deleted] at March 9, 2025, 1:30 p.m.

Comments

Submit Cancel

Currently there are no comments in this discussion, be the first to comment!