Logical reasoning PrepTest 105 · Section 2 · Question 22

Question prompt

To hold criminals responsible Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: E

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Argument or Facts

Argument

Valid or Flawed

Flawed

Question Type

Errors in Reasoning Questions

Stimulus Summary

Principle - All actions are the result of the environment the actor was forged in The law-abiding majority create and maintain the environment everyone is forged in, so it’s not the criminals but the law-abiding majority that’s to blame for crime.

Answer Anticipation

These theoretical legal arguments always seem to be rather abstract and complicated on the LSAT! So let’s try to simplify this one. The argument is about who is to blame for crime, and it decides that it’s the law-abiding majority, not the criminals. How does it get to that point? By appealing to a generalization - all actions are a product of the environment that the actor grew up in. And since the law-abiding majority shape that environment, then they’re to blame for crime, not the criminals. But hold on a second - the general principle here is very broad. It talks about all actions - including those taken by the law-abiding majority in creating and maintaining the environment. Since these actions, too, are ultimately products of the environment that forged the law-abiding majority’s character, the law-abiding majority can’t be held responsible for them. In failing to apply its own principle to all parties of the argument, this argument is flawed, so let’s find an answer reflecting that.

Answer choices

  1. A
    it exploits an ambiguity Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited
    Both times “environment” shows up, it appears to be talking about the culture in which people live, so there’s no Ambiguous Word Use flaw here.
  2. B
    it fails to distinguish Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    The argument discusses crime, which would be a socially unacceptable action, so the argument does distinguish here.
  3. C
    the way it distinguishes Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    The argument doesn’t try to argue that criminals haven’t committed crimes, or that someone who commits a crime isn’t a criminal. Rather, it debates whether they’re to blame for committing those crimes. Note that the argument still refers to people who commit crimes as criminals, even though it argues they weren’t responsible for those crimes.
  4. D
    its conclusion is a Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited
    There’s no statistical evidence presented, so this answer is incorrect.
  5. E
    its conclusion contradicts an Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E matches the stem
    The argument states that criminals are responsible for their actions because of a principle - that all actions are the result of one’s environment. However, it then blames the law-abiding majority for their actions. But the principle would apply to this group, as well, and thus they wouldn’t be responsible for their actions - no one would be to blame for anything! The argument’s conclusion, in blaming a group for their actions, contradicts the earlier principle that all actions are the result of one’s environment and thus the actors can’t be blamed.

What this tests

Question analytics

Based on historical answer selection rates for this question.

Answer choice distribution

  1. A 15%
  2. B 9%
  3. C 20%
  4. D 2%
  5. E Credited 54%

Deeper help

Ask follow-ups on any step

Optional AI tutor mode will let you interrogate assumptions, compare answers, and drill weak patterns without leaving the page.

Human-written explanations stay primary; AI is an add-on when you want it.

Discussion

  • Answer Choice B 2 replies

    Started by AndrewArabie

  • Question 1 reply

    Started by MelissaToribio

  • Answer choice 'A' 4 replies

    Started by DanielDePasquale

View all discussions Start a discussion