- Thu Jan 16, 2020 12:42 pm
#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.
Adam M. Tyson
PowerScore LSAT, GRE, ACT and SAT Instructor
Follow me on Twitter at
https://twitter.com/LSATadam