LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

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

 LSAT2018
  • Posts: 242
  • Joined: Jan 10, 2018
|
#47289
Where is the evidence for answer (C) for this question?

I thought (A) and (C) were too inclusive (given 'all situations' and 'every fair rule') and did not give much thought to those questions. Because the passage is concerned with 'many situations' (second paragraph) and 'some other situations' (third paragraph), I did not think the author spoke of all situations.
 Adam Tyson
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 5153
  • Joined: Apr 14, 2011
|
#47310
See line 20:
Any fair rule, then, would be better than no rule at all.
Since the author's theme is the prevention of harm, if any fair rule is better than no rule at all, then any fair rule must be less harmful than the absence of any rule.

I see three problems with answer A: first, the scope is too broad, covering ALL compulsory rules about coordination. I don't think we can go that far with the one example we were given. Second, it fails to address the issue of preventing harm to others. Just because a rule is "needed" doesn't mean that it prevents that harm. Finally, the author never says that all rules are equal so long as they are uniformly applied; he says IF they are fair, THEN they are better than having no rule at all. There still could be some rules that are better than other rules.
 lsatprep1215
  • Posts: 33
  • Joined: Dec 16, 2019
|
#73322
Hi, I understand why C is correct now but I want to ask further about why is D wrong? In line 20-25 "On the assumption that all people would voluntarily agree to be subject to a coordination rule backed by criminal sanctions, if people could be assured that others would also agree, it is argued to be legitimate for a legislature to impose such a rule." This to me support the sentence in answer D "There would be little need for formal regulation and enforcement of conventional driving patterns..." Can someone explain?
 Adam Tyson
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 5153
  • Joined: Apr 14, 2011
|
#73340
The problem with answer D, prep, is that it says nothing about conforming with the conventional driving patterns. Answer D is saying if everyone knew why we had the regulations and agreed that the regulations made sense, we would not have to enforce them. No tickets, no arrests - a completely unenforced set of regulations.

But does knowing why a rule makes sense imply that we will then follow the rules? We can all probably agree that "stop at a red light and wait to go again until it turns green" is rational and sensible, but does that stop some of us from saying to ourselves "yeah, but I can see that there is no traffic in any direction, and it's late and I just want to get home, and this light is taking forever and might actually be broken, so the heck with it, I'm going to go through it"? Or worse, "I know why there is no passing allowed over a solid double yellow line, and the line here is a solid double yellow because I can't see around the curve up ahead to know if a car is coming the other way, and that is very reasonable and makes sense, but I am in a hurry and willing to take the risk and go for it because I have a good feeling the road will be clear."?

Answer D is only about understanding and accepting the arguments for the rules, but has nothing to do with compliance! There is no reason to think the author would agree that we don't need to give out tickets or arrest people for their violations simply because those people understood the rule that they broke. The rationale behind the rules is why the author thinks that it is OKAY to enforce those rules, even if nobody got hurt - no collision after running the red light or passing on the curve. We enforce the rules because without them, someone MIGHT get hurt. A fair rule is better than no rule at all, but only if the fair rule is actually enforced.
 lsatprep1215
  • Posts: 33
  • Joined: Dec 16, 2019
|
#73351
Adam Tyson wrote:The problem with answer D, prep, is that it says nothing about conforming with the conventional driving patterns. Answer D is saying if everyone knew why we had the regulations and agreed that the regulations made sense, we would not have to enforce them. No tickets, no arrests - a completely unenforced set of regulations.

But does knowing why a rule makes sense imply that we will then follow the rules? We can all probably agree that "stop at a red light and wait to go again until it turns green" is rational and sensible, but does that stop some of us from saying to ourselves "yeah, but I can see that there is no traffic in any direction, and it's late and I just want to get home, and this light is taking forever and might actually be broken, so the heck with it, I'm going to go through it"? Or worse, "I know why there is no passing allowed over a solid double yellow line, and the line here is a solid double yellow because I can't see around the curve up ahead to know if a car is coming the other way, and that is very reasonable and makes sense, but I am in a hurry and willing to take the risk and go for it because I have a good feeling the road will be clear."?

Answer D is only about understanding and accepting the arguments for the rules, but has nothing to do with compliance! There is no reason to think the author would agree that we don't need to give out tickets or arrest people for their violations simply because those people understood the rule that they broke. The rationale behind the rules is why the author thinks that it is OKAY to enforce those rules, even if nobody got hurt - no collision after running the red light or passing on the curve. We enforce the rules because without them, someone MIGHT get hurt. A fair rule is better than no rule at all, but only if the fair rule is actually enforced.
Thanks for the explanation, I think i understand now!

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

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