Logical reasoning PrepTest 107 · Section 4 · Question 6

Question prompt

Some judges complain about 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

Main Point Questions

Stimulus Summary

Judges: Mandatory minimums prevent us from making judgment calls, so they’re bad.
Author: History shows people act irrationally when allowed to make judgments, and judges are people, so their reasoning actually shows why these rules are good.

Answer Anticipation

When dealing with a Main Point question, don’t solve past the correct answer! We’re looking for the main point, so we don’t need to fully dig into the logic of the argument.
Here, we start with what “[s]ome judges” complain about, before diving into why they complain about it. This is an opposing point, so we should speed along until we get the Author’s pivot away from it.
That happens with the “But” in the third sentence, stating that “that” is why mandatory minimums are necessary. First, this is an opinion of the opposing point, so it’s almost certainly the main point. Second, it refers back to the preceding statement, so if this ends up being the main point, we should go back to check what “that” is.
If we read on, the Author ends the argument with an appeal to history and showing that the lessons learned there apply in the present case, so that’s all support for the third sentence. Let’s head back there and make sure we understand it, and then find an answer reflecting it.
“That” is referring back to the reasoning presented by the judges - that mandatory minimums prevent them from exercising judgment. So the Author’s main point, rephrased to include the idea it refers back to, is that mandatory minimums are necessary because without them judges would exercise judgment over sentencing. Let’s find an answer reflecting that.

Answer choices

  1. A
    People believe that they Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited
    The conclusion is specifically about judges and mandatory minimums, so this answer is too broad. Additionally, the stimulus notes that people are “often” arbitrary and irrational, not always (“never do”).
  2. B
    Mandatory minimum sentences are Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    This is the main point of the judges, but the Author disagrees with it.
  3. C
    Judges should be free Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    Again, this is the view of the judges, while the Author believes they shouldn’t have discretion, at least over minimum sentences.
  4. D
    Judges are often arbitrary Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited
    The conclusion is specifically about mandatory minimums. While the author does believe that judges are often arbitrary and irrational, she applies it to a specific topic, so this answer doesn’t reflect the main point.
  5. E
    Mandatory minimum sentences are Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E matches the stem
    This answer reflects the Author’s main point. Judges argue against mandatory minimums, but the Author pivots and states that they’re necessary so that judges don’t exercise “arbitrary and irrational” judgment over sentencing. This answer reflects the Author’s view of the opposing point, so it’s the correct answer.

What this tests

Question analytics

Based on historical answer selection rates for this question.

Answer choice distribution

  1. A 5%
  2. B 3%
  3. C 2%
  4. D 4%
  5. E Credited 87%

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

View all discussions Start a discussion