Logical reasoning PrepTest 144 · Section 2 · Question 6

Incorrect. The argument is over the fairness of a crime, and this answer doesn't address that, instead bringing in many ideas the Lawyer never discusses.

Incorrect. There's no discussion of overall penalty, just this one, small fine.

Incorrect. There's no discussion of what percentage of the $30 actually makes it to providing services to the victims, so this answer is out of scope.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
All criminals must now pay a victim surcharge to help victims of violent crimes, but that's unfair to people who commit nonviolent crimes.

Answer Anticipation:
This Lawyer's probably not winning many people to his side of the argument!

For Strengthen (Principle) questions, we want to start with the judgment in the conclusion, and then see the relevant details in the premises that back it up. Here, the conclusion is that something is unfair—making nonviolent criminals pay into a fund to help victims of violent crimes.

Why is that unfair? It's actually more implied than directly stated. The Lawyer believes it's unfair because the money isn't going to the victims of the nonviolent criminals—why should they pay to help the victims of other crimes? Not the most sympathetic argument, but it's the one being made here, so the principle should be something in the area of:

If one is made to pay a fine to help victims of someone else's crimes, then that fine is unfair.

Note that the Lawyer specifically concludes that this is unfair "to nonviolent criminals," not that it's unfair in general or, say, to the victims of nonviolent crimes. Since that's an easy way to misread the conclusion, there's a good chance a trap answer will justify that conclusion instead.

Answer Explanation:
Nonviolent crimes such as petty theft are less serious than violent crimes. This answer establishes that the criminals committing nonviolent crimes shouldn't be required to pay for services for victims of violent crimes—and if they shouldn't have to do so, then it's unfair to make them. This answer justifies the Lawyer's conclusion, so it's the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
The correct answer here makes a jump that the LSAT allows you to make—between what should be done and what's fair. The LSAT has, in the past, allowed that connection to exist without stating it—if you're forced to do something you shouldn't be forced to do, then that's unfair, and if something is unfair, then it shouldn't be done. It's rare, but it's happened enough times for it to be a rule you can rely on.

Incorrect. The specific fine mentioned is a flat $30, not tied to the amount of the stolen property, so this answer is discussing a wholly different argument.