Logical reasoning PrepTest 151 · Section 4 · Question 17

Incorrect. The argument is built to show that an opposing viewpoint is unsustainable because of the implication in question. As such, the author doesn't offer evidence to accept that implication—instead, she shows that if it's accepted by the opposing viewpoint (which it is), then it leads to a contradiction in that viewpoint.

Incorrect. It's a statement inferred from a position the argument seeks to undermine as "unsustainable."

Incorrect. The argument heavily implies the author doesn't agree with this statement, but outside of that, it's noted as an implication of an opposing viewpoint, so it's neither a conclusion nor something the author is in favor of.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Argument Structure

Stimulus Summary:
Counterpoint: Punishment should fit the crime, but repeat offenders should be punished more.
Implication of viewpoint: Acts from decades ago are relevant to the seriousness of a current crime.
If that's true, everything would need to be considered, and that's impossible to do, so the initial viewpoint is "unsustainable."

Answer Anticipation:
The author starts this argument with a conclusion—a certain viewpoint (punishment should both be proportional and reflect prior bad acts) is unsustainable. The second sentence is the statement in question—and it's noted as an implication of that opposing viewpoint ("It implies that . . . "). The author then goes on to show how that implication will make achieving proportional punishment essentially impossible.

So the statement in question is an implication of the opposing viewpoint that the author uses to show that viewpoint as "unsustainable." The correct answer should highlight that it's a part of the opposing point the author uses to undermine that viewpoint.

Answer Explanation:
The author does argue that it's an untenable ("unsustainable") consequence ("It implies that . . . ") of the opposing viewpoint, so this answer highlights the role of that statement in the overall argument.

Key Takeaway:
When the author of an argument notes an assumption or implication of an opposing viewpoint, it's key fodder for an answer on the LSAT.

Incorrect. There's no intermediate conclusion in the argument. The last sentence builds with the implication to create the contradiction, it doesn't use that implication as support. Since this answer doesn't reflect the structure of the argument, it's incorrect.