Q26

[Acing LSAT]

I think the key to this answer is that passage A is only about applying laws and not passing them. That knocks out (A), (D) and (E). (C) is contardiced by the passage.

that leaves us with (B)

[ohthatpatrick]

I think that's a GREAT way of simplifying what is otherwise an annoying question (since the passages didn't have a ton of overlap, it's hard to answer this question in my own words, prior to looking at choices).

Since Psg. A only discussed selective enforcement / nonenforcement of laws, that's the only ammunition we have to go off of in picking an answer choice about the author of psg. A.

As you said, (A), (D), and (E) involve advice about how a law should / shouldn't be crafted or enacted.

Only (B) and (C) relate to how a law should / shouldn't be enforced, and (C) doesn't make any sense.

(B), incidentally, is supported by 14-16.

Bravo.

[genieb]

I don't understand why C is not correct. Doesn't the plan to selectively shut off residents' water (l. 41-47) correspond to the idea in passage A that "discretionary enforcement" is appropriate because the social costs involved are reduced? Wouldn't it be a "reasonsable response"/policy to be enforced? (although I have to say the second part of the C seems a bit off , "(response) to the water department's history of enforcing overinclusive rules to the letter"

Also, why is D wrong? Is it because only passage B suggests the "liens" method, and passage A doesn't have anything to support that idea>??

Thank you.

[Emily Madan]

Here's my take on it it!

Correct Answer: B
Question Type: Synthesis (41-47, 1-3, 14-18)

The lines referred to discuss the government’s plan of selectively shutting off water to wealthy homes that are behind on payments. Because this is, in effect, selectively enforcing the law, it would seem that the author of passage A would agree with this strategy.

(A) Author A doesn’t seem to have any opinions about appropriations, and there’s no reason to believe he would want this strategy put on hold.

(B) This emphasizes the benefits of selective application of the law rather than complete enforcement. Additionally, it’s talking about one of the harms that the author of Passage A claims occur with over-enforcement in lines 14-18. This seems to be something the author of Passage A would agree with. Leave it.

(C) While the author may think this plan is reasonable, we have no evidence that the water department previously enforced over-inclusive laws. In fact, by not turning off the water, they are not truly enforcing laws. Eliminate it.

(D) This is the opinion of the author of passage B, not A. Eliminate it.

(E) This strategy works against author A’s main point. He does not believe that we should have more specific laws. He believes that we should have selective enforcement of general laws. Eliminate it.

The only answer we’re left with is the correct one, (B).

[jrnlsn.nelson]

I was down to (B) and (C) and ultimately chose (C). What threw me off about (B) is that the line in Passage A that talks about social costs says: "Enforcing an overinclusive rule to the letter could impose very heavy social costs." Overinclusive is not italicized in the passage, that was my doing. Yet, that was the word that led me to eliminate (B). How are we supposed to infer that the rule specified in Passage B to cut people's water off is overinclusive? I inferred that this rule was not overinclusive, thus there would be no way to deduce that there would be heavy social costs with enforcing it.

Where am I going wrong? Thanks for help.

[logicfiend]

For jrnlsn.nelson, not an instructor, but here’s my two cents, if it helps you out.

I think you need to do a little bit of connecting the dots. Line 6 of passage A says, “Rules of law are almost always overinclusive.” Think about what overinclusive means—from passage A we know this means some things are included in a law beyond the intentions of the legislature. In passage B’s example, the implied rule here must be that everyone who is not paying their bill must be held accountable.

Is this overinclusive? Sure, does this city really want to cut off the water of EVERYONE that hasn’t paid their bills? I think this is also hinted at the fact that law enforcement is trying “send a message” to the others. If they really wanted to send a message, wouldn’t they just cut off access for everyone?

Therefore, we can extrapolate that following the rule to the letter in passage B would mean cutting off EVERYONE’S water that has a late bill. But, as Passage A says often happens, law enforcement isn’t doing that. What (B) is saying is, well, only cutting off the water of certain high income residents is better than everyone losing access to water, which could also include low-income and other people with much lesser means. Therefore, yes, social costs would be lower under the "discretionary nonenforcement” of law. I think (B) would also be supported by lines 18-22, where the author is talking about weighing the social costs of a particular use of law enforcement.

Does this help?

And then to another point earlier on, I would agree passage A says nothing about passing laws, but it definitely seems to make a few references to formulating laws, lines 6-14. This doesn’t make (A) or (D) any more attractive, but I do think these lines from passage A help us to infer that passage A author would be against changing the law specifically to be about the water problem—like he or she says, “The more particularly the legislature tries to describe the forbidden conduct, the more loopholes it will create.”

[tommywallach]

Thanks, Logic!

[DPCTE4325]

Hey Patrick!

I’m very confused about how to approach these question types. Do we first have to verify the truth of the answer choices?

For example, answer choice C seems tempting if the question stem were to have said “which of the following, IF TRUE?”

But since it doesn’t, answer choice C is almost contradicted via the passage. But why does that mean the author of Passage A STILL can’t agree with it? Just bc it’s not supported by Passage B doesn’t mean the author of Passage A wouldnt support it?

I think that's a GREAT way of simplifying what is otherwise an annoying question (since the passages didn't have a ton of overlap, it's hard to answer this question in my own words, prior to looking at choices).

Since Psg. A only discussed selective enforcement / nonenforcement of laws, that's the only ammunition we have to go off of in picking an answer choice about the author of psg. A.

As you said, (A), (D), and (E) involve advice about how a law should / shouldn't be crafted or enacted.

Only (B) and (C) relate to how a law should / shouldn't be enforced, and (C) doesn't make any sense.

(B), incidentally, is supported by 14-16.

Bravo.