Many of us can conceive of penalties that seem disproportionate to the

Question

Many of us can conceive of penalties that seem
disproportionate to the crimes they are intended to
punish. A sentence of probation for a person convicted
of a brutal murder is one example of such an
  (5)   imbalance. At the other extreme is a sentence of twenty
years in prison for shoplifting. But what is the source
of these commonsense intuitions about the
appropriateness of punishments?

There are two main rationales for punishing
  (10)   criminals. The first rationale justifies a punishment in
terms of its benefit to society. Society is said to benefit
whenever the fear of punishment deters a person from
committing a crime, or when a convicted criminal is
removed from contact with society at large. The second
  (15)   rationale is that a punishment is justified by the
severity of the crime, independent of any benefit to
society. This rationale is controversial because some
find it difficult to see how a punishment can be
justified if it brings no societal benefit; without such
  (20)   benefit, punishment would appear to be little more
than retribution. But from the retributivist point of view, the
question to be asked about punishment is not whether it
is beneficial, but whether it is just—that is, appropriate.

One problem with the social-benefit rationale is
  (25)   that it is possible that very harsh penalties even for
minor offenses may have great benefit to society. For
example, if shoplifters faced twenty-year jail sentences,
shoplifting might be deterred. Yet something leads us
to say that in such cases the penalty far outweighs the
  (30)   crime. That is, there appears to be something
intuitively wrong, or unjust, about these punishments.
And it would seem that this intuition can only find
support in a retributive conception of punishment,
under which certain types of punishments are
  (35)   inherently more appropriate than others. The notion
of appropriateness is absent from the first rationale, which
could conceivably allow for any sort of punishment as
long as it benefits society. Retributive considerations,
on the other hand, allow for proportionality between
  (40)   punishments and crimes. This is what fuels our notion
of just (as opposed to beneficial) punishment.

However, it can be argued that our intuition of the
injustice of an overly harsh punishment is based on our
sense that such a punishment is more harmful to the
  (45)   criminal than beneficial to society; and, similarly, that
our intuition that a punishment is just is based on our
sense that this punishment fairly balances societal
benefit against harm to the criminal. In this way the
second rationale can be seen as grounded in the first
  (50)   and its retributive nature disappears. Thus it seems
that even our so-called intuitive notions of the
appropriateness of punishments have their basis in the
concept of benefit.    1 
 1. Which one of the following most accurately states the main point of the passage?

(A) Of the two main rationales for justifying punishing criminals, the retributivist rationale can be shown to be more fundamental, since our sense of the social benefit of punishments can be explained by our intuitions about justice and injustice.
(B) Although social benefit appears to be a reasonable rationale for punishing criminals, the fact that it can justify very harsh penalties for even minor offenses shows its inadequacy and argues for the alternative retributivist rationale.
(C) Because the retributivist rationale for punishing criminals allows for proportionality between punishments and crimes, it is able to support our intuitions that certain penalties are disproportionate to their crimes in a way that the social-benefit rationale cannot.
(D) Because the rationale that punishment is justified by the severity of the crime amounts to no more than retribution, punishment of a criminal can be justified only if it produces a social benefit that outweighs the harm it brings to the criminal.
(E) Although it appears better able to support our intuitions about just and unjust punishment than the social-benefit rationale, the rationale that punishments ought to fit crimes may, in the end, be itself grounded in the concept of benefit.

2 
 2. According to the passage, the second rationale for punishing criminals is controversial because it

(A) does not employ the notion of social benefit
(B) allows for disproportionately severe punishments
(C) conflicts with our intuitions about justice
(D) implies that punishment does not deter criminals
(E) arises from intuition rather than logic

3 
 3. Based on the passage, the “retributive nature” of the second rationale for punishing criminals (line 50) consists in that rationale’s

(A) equating social benefit with harm to criminals
(B) regarding punishment as justified by the severity of the crime
(C) support for sentences disproportionate to the crimes they punish
(D) belief that any punishment that benefits society is just
(E) favoring harsher sentences over more lenient ones

4 
 4. The author states that our intuition of the injustice of an overly harsh punishment may be based on which one of the following notions?

(A) Such punishment brings no benefit to society at large.
(B) Such punishment is potentially harmful to the criminal.
(C) Such punishment benefits society less than it harms the criminal.
(D) Such punishment harms the criminal less than it benefits society.
(E) Such punishment attempts to reconcile social benefit with harm to the criminal.

5 
 5. It can be inferred from the passage that the author would be most likely to agree with which one of the following characterizations of the second rationale for punishing criminals?

(A) It is more widely accepted than the first rationale.
(B) It does not have the same potential unfairness as the first rationale.
(C) It justifies more kinds of punishments than the first rationale.
(D) It is used just in those cases where the first rationale violates our intuitions.
(E) It inherently allows more lenient punishment than the first rationale.

6 
 6. As expressed in the passage, the author’s attitude toward very harsh penalties for minor offenses is most accurately described as

(A) reluctant approval of the deterrence they offer against crime
(B) mild skepticism that they ultimately benefit society
(C) detached indifference toward their effects on criminals
(D) scholarly neutrality on whether they are justified
(E) implicit disapproval of their moral injustice

7 
 7. As described in the second paragraph, the second rationale for punishing criminals is most consistent with which one of the following principles?

(A) The correctness of an action depends not on its consequences but on its inherent fairness.
(B) The correctness of an action depends not on its consequences but on what society deems correct.
(C) The correctness of an action depends partly on its consequences and partly on its inherent fairness.
(D) The correctness of an action depends partly on its consequences and partly on its intuitive rightness.
(E) The correctness of an action depends entirely on its consequences.

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Explanation

5. It can be inferred from the passage that the author would be most likely to agree with which one of the following characterizations of the second rationale for punishing criminals?

Explanation

Option (A)  states that the second rationale is more widely accepted than the first rationale. However, the passage does not provide any indication that one rationale is more widely accepted than the other. In fact, the passage presents both rationales and discusses their strengths and weaknesses without suggesting that either one is universally accepted over the other. Therefore, option (A) is incorrect.

Option (C)  suggests that the second rationale justifies more kinds of punishments than the first rationale. However, the passage does not support this claim. The passage primarily focuses on the distinction between the two rationales and their underlying principles, rather than the specific range of punishments they justify. Hence,  option (C)  is incorrect.

Option (D)  cannot be definitively supported by the passage's information. It goes beyond the scope of the passage

Option (E)  states that the second rationale inherently allows more lenient punishment than the first rationale. However, the passage does not provide any evidence to support this claim. The passage discusses the controversy surrounding the second rationale and the concept of proportionality between punishments and crimes. It does not suggest that the second rationale inherently leads to more lenient punishments. Therefore, option (E) is incorrect.

In summary, o ption (B)  is the correct characterization because the passage suggests that the second rationale, based on the severity of the crime, does not have the same potential unfairness as the first rationale, which focuses on societal benefit. The passage highlights that the second rationale aims to balance societal benefit with harm to the criminal, indicating a consideration of fairness.

Answer: B

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Explanation

6. As expressed in the passage, the author’s attitude toward very harsh penalties for minor offenses is most accurately described as

Explanation

Based on the passage, the author's attitude toward very harsh penalties for minor offenses is most accurately described as (E) implicit disapproval of their moral injustice. Let's examine the passage to understand why.

The passage discusses two main rationales for punishing criminals: the societal benefit rationale and the severity of the crime rationale. The societal benefit rationale justifies punishment based on its deterrence value and the removal of convicted criminals from society. On the other hand, the severity of the crime rationale argues that punishment should be proportionate to the severity of the offense, regardless of societal benefit.

The passage acknowledges that very harsh penalties for minor offenses, such as a twenty-year jail sentence for shoplifting, may have a potential benefit to society by deterring the crime. However, it also states that something leads us to say that such punishments are intuitively wrong or unjust. The passage suggests that our intuition of injustice is grounded in the sense that overly harsh punishments are more harmful to the criminal than beneficial to society.

Furthermore, the passage highlights that the notion of appropriateness and proportionality, which is absent from the societal benefit rationale, is essential in our intuitive understanding of just punishments. The author argues that retributive considerations, which focus on proportionality between punishments and crimes, provide a basis for our intuitive notions of appropriateness.

Given these points, the author's attitude can be seen as implicitly disapproving of the moral injustice of very harsh penalties for minor offenses. The author highlights the intuitive sense of imbalance and injustice associated with such punishments, suggesting a skepticism regarding their ultimate benefit to society.

Therefore, option (E) implicit disapproval of their moral injustice accurately reflects the author's attitude toward very harsh penalties for minor offenses as conveyed in the passage.

Answer: E

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Explanation

7. As described in the second paragraph, the second rationale for punishing criminals is most consistent with which one of the following principles?

Explanation

Option (A)  states that the correctness of an action depends not on its consequences but on its inherent fairness. This option aligns with the second rationale for punishing criminals as presented in the passage. The passage discusses the controversy surrounding the second rationale, which justifies punishment based on the severity of the crime itself, independent of societal benefit. It mentions that some find it difficult to see how punishment can be justified without societal benefit, as it may appear to be mere retribution. This implies that the second rationale focuses on the inherent fairness of the punishment, rather than its consequences.

Option (B)  suggests that the correctness of an action depends not on its consequences but on what society deems correct. While societal perspective is mentioned in the passage as one aspect of the first rationale, it is not the central principle underlying the second rationale. The passage emphasizes the controversy surrounding societal benefit and highlights the importance of fairness and proportionality, suggesting that the correctness of punishment is not solely determined by societal consensus. Therefore, option (B) is incorrect.

Option (C)  states that the correctness of an action depends partly on its consequences and partly on its inherent fairness. While the second rationale does consider the severity of the crime itself, the passage does not explicitly state that consequences play a role in determining the correctness of punishment. The passage highlights the intuitive sense of injustice and the importance of proportionality, suggesting that the inherent fairness of the punishment is a primary consideration. Therefore, option (C) is not supported by the passage.

Option (D)  suggests that the correctness of an action depends partly on its consequences and partly on its intuitive rightness. While the passage mentions intuition and our sense of injustice, it does not specify that the correctness of punishment depends on intuitive rightness. Instead, it argues for the importance of fairness and proportionality, indicating that the inherent fairness of the punishment is a primary consideration. Thus,  option (D)  is not directly supported.

Option (E)  states that the correctness of an action depends entirely on its consequences. This option contradicts the passage's discussion of the second rationale, which focuses on the inherent fairness of the punishment, independent of societal benefit. The passage suggests that punishment should not be solely determined by its consequences, but rather by its appropriateness and fairness. Therefore,  option (E)  is incorrect.

In summary,  option (A)  The correctness of an action depends not on its consequences but on its inherent fairness aligns with the principles underlying the second rationale for punishing criminals, as described in the passage. The other options are not directly supported by the passage's content.

Answer: A

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Explanation

3. Based on the passage, the “retributive nature” of the second rationale for punishing criminals (line 50) consists in that rationale’s

Explanation

In the passage, it is stated that the second rationale for punishment is based on the severity of the crime, independent of any benefit to society. This perspective believes that a punishment is justified by the nature and seriousness of the crime committed. It focuses on proportionality between punishments and crimes, implying that more severe crimes should be met with more severe punishments.

The passage also mentions that this rationale is controversial because some find it difficult to justify a punishment if it brings no societal benefit. However, from the retributivist point of view, the question is not about the benefit to society but rather whether the punishment is just and appropriate.

Therefore,  option (B)  is the correct answer as it accurately reflects the retributive nature of the second rationale for punishing criminals, which is based on the severity of the crime.

Answer: B

bettyking23 · Answer

The answer is option (B). The passage discusses the controversy surrounding the second rationale, which justifies punishment based on the severity of the crime itself, independent of societal benefit. It mentions that some find it difficult to see how punishment can be justified without societal benefit, as it may appear to be mere retribution. This implies that the second rationale focuses on the inherent fairness of the punishment, rather than its consequences.

Many of us can conceive of penalties that seem disproportionate to the

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Reading Comprehension (RC) Questions

Many of us can conceive of penalties that seem disproportionate to the

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards