Logical reasoning PrepTest 140 · Section 2 · Question 1

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
Evidence suggests the auto shop is responsible, but the punishment is so harsh that we need stronger evidence to be sure enough to justify it.

Answer Anticipation:
Strengthen (Principle) questions generally have answers that connect the details in the premises to the judgment in the conclusion. It's usually best to identify that judgment and then work backwards to determine the details the author relies on to reach that judgment.

Here, the judgment is that we shouldn't impose such a harsh penalty on the auto shop, despite evidence that they're responsible for the pollution. Why not? Because we're not sure enough of their guilt to impose such a harsh penalty.

While many Strengthen (Principle) questions will have us making an anticipation that takes the form of an if/then conditional statement (how principles are generally framed on the LSAT), sometimes we'll break out of that mold. This is one of those times. Here, the author is relying on a positive relationship between the harshness of punishment and the certainty needed to implement it—the harsher the penalty, the more certain you need to be of guilt. This relationship should be established in the correct answer.

Answer Explanation:
This answer establishes the positive connection between the harshness of the crime and the certainty needed to justify imposing it, thus supporting the logic of the argument.

Key Takeaway:
Most Strengthen (Principle) questions will have a correct answer that establishes a conditional relationship that applies in the given situation and justifies the judgment in the conclusion. Some, however, will instead create a proportional (or inversely proportional) relationship, so be prepared for that!

Incorrect. There's no discussion of deterrence in the stimulus, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. The stimulus doesn't discuss how to determine how harsh a penalty should be, and it especially doesn't assume it should be proportional to harm. Instead, it talks about the relationship between certainty and the imposition of harsh penalties.

Incorrect. While the stimulus does mention an admission, it was an example of the type of strong evidence needed to justify a harsh penalty—the argument isn't about the likelihood of admitting to a crime with such a penalty.

Incorrect. This answer would justify scaling back the harshness of punishment, not justifying it based on a certain level of certainty.