PrepTest 113

Incorrect. A discussion of laws is out of scope—the argument is about judges mitigating punishment. This would happen after it has been determined that a crime was broken.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
Motives are conjecture, and bad motives can be presented as good
Judgment - Judges shouldn't mitigate punishment based on motives

Answer Anticipation:
Strengthen (Principle) questions present us with judgments based on situations, and we need to find answers that justify that judgment based on the situation as described.

Here, we simplified the argument quite a bit because most of it represented opposing points ("Many people") or a concession made to that point ("Granted . . . "). We should focus on just the Political Theorist's argument, which starts at "Nonetheless."

There, she states that knowing someone's motives is pure conjecture. Even if they had bad motives, it's possible that they could present them as being good motives—and we couldn't know for sure that was a lie since we can't get inside their heads.

Since there's uncertainty around the motive, the Theorist believes it shouldn't be taken into account by the judges to mitigate punishment. As such, the principle should be something similar to:
If a factor that might be relevant in a crime is uncertain, then it shouldn't be used to mitigate punishment.

Answer Explanation:
Since this argument talks about erring on one side over another, it's discussing uncertainty. And since it talks about the severity of punishment, it deals with mitigation. As such, it's in scope. Does erring on the side of severe punishment over lenient punishment line up with the argument? It does—when motive can't be known, the Theorist wants the judges to leave the punishment unmitigated—in other words, it's better to accidentally over-punish someone who had good motives than give someone with bad motives a lesser sentence. Since this answer helps to justify the conclusion, this answer is correct.

Key Takeaway:
Some Strengthen (Principle) questions will have answers that are less directly connected to the argument than you anticipate. As long as you're looking for concepts that relate to the answer you anticipated/the concepts in the stimulus, you'll be able to spot these.

Incorrect. There's no question as to the permissibility of actions—the question is about punishment once it's been determined that someone broke the law.

Incorrect. Similar to the other wrong answers, the debate isn't over the enforcement/enactment of a law, but rather the level of punishment once one is convicted.

Incorrect. Disastrous consequences? They aren't mentioned, so they're out of scope here.