LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

Get expert LSAT preparation and law school admissions advice from PowerScore Test Preparation.

 Administrator
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 8919
  • Joined: Feb 02, 2011
|
#58962
Please post your questions below!
 jwheeler
  • Posts: 39
  • Joined: Aug 19, 2018
|
#59741
I was stuck between A and B for this one; is B the better answer because there isn't a "distinction" that the Shelley Court uses? I think there is a conceptual incoherence; they cite the 14th Amendment when regulating a personal/individual action (when it's traditionally been applied only to states), but I think that "distinction" word is where it invalidates the answer.
 Malila Robinson
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 296
  • Joined: Feb 01, 2018
|
#59973
Hi Jwheeler,
I think that your reasoning is spot on. I can't pinpoint the distinction that Answer A would be referring to. So even though the rest of the answer seems to be ok, but perhaps a bit too strong- incoherence is more definitive than confusion, it would fail to be the correct answer because of the missing distinction.
Hope that helps!
-Malila
 IneedLSAThelp
  • Posts: 3
  • Joined: Nov 13, 2018
|
#60401
Hello, why isn't C correct? I was stuck between C and A, which unfortunately were both wrong. A looked good because I thought the distinction referred to the distinction (or lack thereof) between state and private action.
 Malila Robinson
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 296
  • Joined: Feb 01, 2018
|
#60459
Hi IneedLSAThelp,
The problem with Answer A is that, as you said, there was a lack of distinction. The distinction was pointed out by the author of the passage, but that did not come from the Shelley Court.
For Answer C, the author says that the Court had an answer for the part that was quoted in the question. "although the
restrictive covenants themselves were perfectly legal, judicial enforcement of the covenants violated the (25) Fourteenth Amendment because responsibility for a contract’s substantive provisions should be attributed to the state when a court enforces it." So it wasn't that the court was not properly attending to the facts, instead it was that the court used a confusing interpretation of the law when reaching its decision. And that leads to Answer B.
Hope that helps!
-Malila
 ruthtaterginsburg
  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: Aug 11, 2020
|
#77929
Malila Robinson wrote:Hi Jwheeler,
I think that your reasoning is spot on. I can't pinpoint the distinction that Answer A would be referring to. So even though the rest of the answer seems to be ok, but perhaps a bit too strong- incoherence is more definitive than confusion, it would fail to be the correct answer because of the missing distinction.
Hope that helps!
-Malila
The distinction employed by the Shelley Court is the difference between the Fourteenth Amendment not applying to private contracts, but applying to the state. That's not really an incoherence. We know this because line 46 states, "Courts routinely enforce contracts whose substantive provisions could not have been constitutionally enacted by the government."

The passage even gives an example of this, in the fact that courts have enforced agreements that limit a party's ability to speak, despite this being a violation of speech. Thus, this isn't an incoherent distinction, but rather a confusing issue (B).
 Rachael Wilkenfeld
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 1358
  • Joined: Dec 15, 2011
|
#77992
Hi Ruth,

I agree you could see that as a distinction, but not incoherence. Great analysis, and welcome to the forums!

Rachael
 meredithphillips
  • Posts: 1
  • Joined: Jul 27, 2022
|
#96409
Administrator wrote: Mon Oct 01, 2018 4:57 pm Please post your questions below!
Can you please explain why E is wrong?

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

Analyze and track your performance with our Testing and Analytics Package.