- Posts: 37
- Joined: Apr 22, 2021
A seemed suggested by the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph, which says that under a private property concept, “groups functioning legally as individuals” could own property. However, I wondered whether a group functioning as an individual would, from the LSAT's perspective, technically not count as a "group of individuals," and therefore it would still be the case that the passage suggests that, under a private concept, groups of individuals are not allowed to own property.
The reason I thought D might be suggested by the passage was because in paragraph 2 it says “collective ownership casts an individual in the role of guardian or caretaker rather than titleholder." I wasn’t sure if that meant the collective concept excluded the possibility an individual *could* function as titleholder. I decided that the logic behind my objection to this answer was shakier than my logic behind my objection to A, but really didn't feel confident either way, and was wondering if I'm missing something.