Which of the following best summarises the argument?
Short prison sentences are the worst of both worlds. They are too brief to allow any serious rehabilitation, yet long enough to cost an offender a job, a tenancy and sometimes custody of a child. A person leaves prison after eight weeks with nothing to return to, and is then more likely, not less, to offend again. Advocates of short sentences answer that they deliver a clear message and protect the public while the offender is inside. The message is real, but it is a message that community sentences with strict conditions can also deliver, at far lower cost, and without the damage to the offender's family. The public is protected for eight weeks; it is exposed for years if the sentence makes reoffending likelier.
Answer and explanation
Correct answer: D. Short prison sentences do more harm than good and community sentences can deliver the same message
- Step 1: The author calls short sentences the 'worst of both worlds' and offers community sentences as an alternative.
- Step 2: Matching the evidence to the choices leaves "Short prison sentences do more harm than good and community sentences can deliver the same message".
Answer
Short prison sentences do more harm than good and community sentences can deliver the same message.
Why not the others: The author attacks only short sentences, never compares severity, and 'the public needs protection only while offenders are in prison' is the opposite of what the author claims.
Practise more Punishment.
Free questions with an explanation for every one, and full timed LNAT mock tests.