When an appellate court reviews the imposition of the exceptional sentence, it applies a two-part abuse of discretion test. First, it asks if the trial judge acted arbitrarily or capriciously in imposing the exceptional sentence. Second, the reviewing court asks if the trial court's rationale for imposing the exceptional sentence is so tenuous that no reasonable person would have reached the same conclusion. An affirmative answer to either question means that the trial court abused its discretion. Critics of this abuse of discretion standard argue that the Washington legislature intended to provide strict control over sentencing and the court's discretionary powers by providing for a review of exceptional sentences that does not rubber stamp trial court sentencing decisions. Advocates of the abuse of discretion standard argue that judges should be permitted to tailor sentences to the facts of particular cases, such as in the Minnesota courts. The Minnesota doubling rule limits the trial court's discretion in imposing exceptional sentences to twice the presumptive range. 89 footnotes