Logical reasoning PrepTest 112 · Section 1 · Question 20

Question prompt

Editorialist: To ensure justice 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

Strengthen with Necessary Premise Questions

Stimulus Summary

Ensure justice → Citizens able to criticize who determines punishments
If the legal system is meant to deter crime, then that requires experts on subjects that citizens don’t understand
Therefore - Justice isn’t ensured

Answer Anticipation

The Editorialist starts her argument by bringing up a principle that establishes a necessary condition for justice to be ensured - that citizens are capable of criticizing those involved in determining punishments. When a Strengthen with Necessary Premise question features conditional logic, it will usually either bring up multiple conditional statements that chain together or attempt to apply that conditional to a specific case.
In this case, the Editorialist attempts to apply it to a justice system whose purpose is seen as deterrence. When that happens, the argument is commonly flawed in that it fails to fully establish the sufficient condition. To analyze this, then, we should see if the situation does match up with it, and if the conclusion does. Here, the Editorialist concludes that, in such a system, justice is not ensured.
To reach that conclusion, we need the contrapositive of the conditional principle:
~Citizens able to criticize who determines punishments → ~Ensure justice
So to reach the conclusion, the argument needs to establish that in a justice system with deterrence as a focus, citizens aren’t able to criticize those who determine punishments.
Instead, she establishes that citizens lack knowledge of matters that experts need to figure out the punishments. There’s no indication that citizens can’t criticize people for making determinations on subjects that they lack knowledge on (...), so we should look for that as an answer.

Answer choices

  1. A
    Most citizens view justice Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited
    The Editorialist talks about a justice system where deterrence is the purpose, so this answer about a different purpose believed in by most is out of scope.
  2. B
    In order to be Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    The Editorialist considers a legal system that isn’t assuredly just despite taking this into consideration, so this answer doesn’t align with the argument.
  3. C
    The primary concern in Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    There’s no discussion that punishments must be just for a justice system to be just. It could be that unjust punishments might be congruent in a just legal system if it accomplishes other goals of justice.
  4. D
    In a legal system, Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited
    The Editorialist discusses a deterrent legal system that is focused on punishments, just not the harshest ones. As such, this answer doesn’t apply.
  5. E
    Citizens without knowledge about Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E matches the stem
    This answer establishes that what is known about a legal system based on deterrence doesn’t meet the necessary condition for ensuring justice. If citizens without knowledge on a subject can criticize experts in that area, then the argument falls apart, as the situation doesn’t trigger the conditional.

What this tests

Question analytics

Based on historical answer selection rates for this question.

Answer choice distribution

  1. A 5%
  2. B 7%
  3. C 4%
  4. D 7%
  5. E Credited 78%

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