Critical Reasoning

PT37.2.22 -
Political theorist: Many people believe that the punishment of those who commit even the most heinous crimes should be mitigated to some extent if the crime was motivated by a sincere desire to achieve some larger good. Granted, some criminals with admirable motives deserve mitigated punishments. Nonetheless, judges should never mitigate punishment on the basis of motives, since motives are essentially a matter of conjecture and even vicious motives can easily be presented as altruistic.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the political theorist's reasoning?
A. Law that prohibit or permit actions solely on the basis of psychological states should not be part of the legal system.
B. It is better to err on the side of overly sever punishment than to err on the side of overly lenient punishment.
C. The legal permissibility of actions should depend on the perceivable consequences of those actions.
D. No law that cannot be enforced should be enacted.
E. A legal system that, if adopted, would have disastrous consequences ought not be adopted.

OA - B.

Why is A incorrect? Thoughts?

The problem with A is that the conclusion is specifically about the level of punishment issued and whether that level should be mitigated by motive. This is a separate issue from the laws themselves.

Bill,
Thanks for reply. I have a follow-up question :

Conclusion - Judges should never mitigate punishment based on motives.

Premise - Motives are essentially a matter of conjecture and motives can be changed.

Assumption - Judges can know motives of criminals.
Assumption - Judges can influence the severity of punishment.

I see how B) is correct. But can we say that "Motives" are not "psychological state" in A?

On the LSAT, we would probably be expected to make that connection, but the GMAT is typically a bit more direct in its language...I think we could rule out A for that reason.

Please use spoiler for the OA.
Thanks for the question.

Vodoo-child..pls try to learn how to use spoilers in your post.

voodoo_child wrote:PT37.2.22 -
Political theorist: Many people believe that the punishment of those who commit even the most heinous crimes should be mitigated to some extent if the crime was motivated by a sincere desire to achieve some larger good. Granted, some criminals with admirable motives deserve mitigated punishments. Nonetheless, judges should never mitigate punishment on the basis of motives, since motives are essentially a matter of conjecture and even vicious motives can easily be presented as altruistic.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the political theorist's reasoning?
A. Law that prohibit or permit actions solely on the basis of psychological states should not be part of the legal system.
B. It is better to err on the side of overly sever punishment than to err on the side of overly lenient punishment.
C. The legal permissibility of actions should depend on the perceivable consequences of those actions.
D. No law that cannot be enforced should be enacted.
E. A legal system that, if adopted, would have disastrous consequences ought not be adopted.

OA - B.

Why is A incorrect? Thoughts?