PrepTest 150

Incorrect. There's no information establishing the two theories as being mutually exclusive. Someone could absolutely believe that the purpose of criminal sentencing is to punish, but a happy benefit is that it also reforms the individual.

Incorrect. When longer sentences for repeat crimes are discussed, it's in the context of punishment and acceptability, not reform. This answer choice tries to combine ideas that aren't combined and don't overlap in the stimulus.

Incorrect. The stimulus doesn't present much information about rehabilitationist theories, so it would be hard to justify this answer. This answer is trying to get you to incorrectly assume that the two theories are opposites of each other, when they're just established as having different goals.

Incorrect. The stimulus presents a necessary condition for acceptability, not a necessary one, so this answer choice is an illegal reversal.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Facts

Question Type:
Must Be True

Stimulus Summary:
Only retribution and rehabilitation are acceptable theories for criminal sentencing. Retribution is only acceptable if it is proportional to the crime. Increasing the sentence for repeat crimes isn't proportional since harsher sentences are given for the same crime, so they violate the proportional principle for retribution.

Answer Anticipation:
There isn't much on rehabilitation, so the correct answer will probably deal with retribution. There's overlap between those latter statements. Since repeat-crime rules aren't proportional, violating the principle set up in the second sentence, then they must not be proportional, and are therefore not acceptable. That seems like a good anticipation, so let's head to the answer.

Answer Explanation:
Complex, but it's the only answer left. As we discussed in the anticipation section, it must be true that retributive theories that rely on repeat-crime rules aren't acceptable, and this answer states that they're acceptable if they're a part of a rehabilitationist theory. How does that work?

Read this answer carefully. It starts by stating that there is a repeat-crime rule that is acceptable. If that's the case, it can't be a part of a retributive theory, for the reasons discussed in the anticipation. Since there are only two acceptable types of theories, and we ruled one out, it must be an example of the other theory—rehabilitationist. Very tricky, LSAT—you better not try to pull that one again . . .

Key Takeaway:
Anticipations are good guideposts, but they're not always going to be spot on. You need to stay flexible on this test!