LSAT Explanation PT 30, S4, Q3: Legal theorist: It is unreasonable to

LSAT Question Stem

The claim in the first sentence of the passage plays which one of the following roles in the argument? 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is an Argument Part question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is C. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

Let's start by analyzing the argument in the passage. The legal theorist is discussing the reasons for incarcerating someone and argues that it is only reasonable to incarcerate someone if they pose a serious threat to the property or lives of others. In order to understand this argument better, let's break it down into its premises and conclusion.

Premise 1: Incarceration is only reasonable if someone is a serious threat to property or lives of others.

Premise 2: Lawbreaking comes from either ignorance or free choice.

Premise 3: Ignorance does not justify incarceration.

Premise 4: Free choice comes from genetics and environmental conditioning, which are not controlled by the agent.

Intermediate Conclusion: Therefore, breaking the law does not justify incarceration.

Main Conclusion: It is unreasonable to incarcerate anyone for any other reason than that he or she is a serious threat to the property or lives of other people.

Now, let's examine the question type and what it's asking us to do. This is an Argument Part question, which asks us to identify the role of a specific claim in the argument. In this case, we need to determine the role of the claim in the first sentence of the passage.

Let's go through each answer choice and evaluate how well it fits the role of the first sentence in the argument:

a) It is offered as a premise that helps to show that no actions are under the control of the agent.

This answer choice is incorrect because the first sentence does not directly address the control of the agent's actions. It focuses on the reasons for incarceration.

b) It is offered as background information necessary to understand the argument.

This answer choice is also incorrect because the first sentence is not just background information. It is an essential part of the argument as the main conclusion.

c) It is offered as the main conclusion that the argument is designed to establish.

This answer choice is correct. As we identified in our analysis, the first sentence is the main conclusion of the argument. The rest of the passage provides premises and an intermediate conclusion to support this main conclusion.

d) It is offered as evidence for the stated claim that protection of life and property is more important than retribution for past illegal acts.

This answer choice is incorrect because the first sentence is not used as evidence for any other claim. It is the main conclusion of the argument.

e) It is offered as evidence for the stated claim that lawbreaking proceeds from either ignorance of the law, or ignorance of the effects of one's actions, or free choice.

This answer choice is also incorrect because the first sentence is not used as evidence for any other claim. It is the main conclusion of the argument.

Thus, the correct answer is C. The claim in the first sentence of the passage serves as the main conclusion that the argument is designed to establish.