Q24

[oslo90066]

I'm not sure why B is the correct answer, since the author of this passage doesn' t make this prescription in the passage. If B is right, I don' t understand why E is wrong, since the argument is based on the fact that the language of the constitution is open to interpretation. Again, there is no prescription for E either.

[noah]

Good question. I must admit that I was torn between (B) and (E), but upon reflection, I see that the problem with (E) is that the main issue of the passage is not the constitution's vague language, but how the provincial courts have handed interpreting the new constitutional rights. It's easy to add-in the idea that the author is suggesting that the language is problematic when she may think that it is actually the system of allowing provincial courts to handle the interpretation that is the problem. Indeed, the last sentence might be hinting at her thought that it would be better if the Supreme Court were charged with interpreting these rights.

(B) is not explicitly supported -- indeed this question requires a significant inference/synthesis -- by lines 36-39 and 58-63. The last sentence shows the author's desire to see more aboriginal rights protected (though one could argue that perhaps the author is simply referring to that one case, but the fact that the author sides with the group's interest over the narrow interpretation of the law is enough to show the author's position). Knowing the author's position, and then reviewing 36-39, we can imagine that the author might want to overcome the "difficulties" she mentions, perhaps with the solution outlined in (B).

In general, though, (B) is correct because all the other choices are not supported at all by the text. For example, (C) is too strong - all their customs? As is often the case, the LSAT is able to write less than ideal answer choices because the question stem explicitly hedges "most likely".

Does that help?

[kevmillva]

Hi Noah,
I just wanted to point out that the answer to Q24 is "B", not C, and to share a couple of thoughts about this difficult question.

I also fell for "E" when I took this test. From what I can tell (after 5 minutes of staring at it that I didn't have time for while taking the exam), this can be excluded by lines 13-14, where the author refers to the "necessarily general constitutional language". A, C, and D are all possible beliefs the author might have, but this is not supported by any real passage evidence. B, though, is directly supported by lines 36-39.

I guess the key learning from all this, for me, was that when dealing with these types of "infer what the author might agree with based on the subtext of his opinions," the answer is usually the most obvious one -- the one you can relate to something specifically said in the passage -- rather than a follow on conclusion YOU think would be a rational extension of the author's opinion.

Now, it remains to be seen if I can actually apply this insight, instead of continuing to miss this type of question!

-Kevin

[noah]

Hey Kevin, Thanks for pointing out the typo (I'll go back and fix that now). I totally agree with your reasoning. One way to think about this sort of thing is "Could the author disagree with this answer, given what he or she has said?" In this case, it's possible that the author would say "No, I don't want the constitution to be more specific. Given the crazies in parliament, who knows what sort of strange delineations they'd make! I want the Supreme Court to resolve this (as I said in line 59 - 63)."

Sounds like you're on the right path, Kevin. Good luck!

- Noah

[LSAT-Chang]

Good question. I must admit that I was torn between (B) and (E), but upon reflection, I see that the problem with (E) is that the main issue of the passage is not the constitution's vague language, but how the provincial courts have handed interpreting the new constitutional rights. It's easy to add-in the idea that the author is suggesting that the language is problematic when she may think that it is actually the system of allowing provincial courts to handle the interpretation that is the problem. Indeed, the last sentence might be hinting at her thought that it would be better if the Supreme Court were charged with interpreting these rights.

(B) is not explicitly supported -- indeed this question requires a significant inference/synthesis -- by lines 36-39 and 58-63. The last sentence shows the author's desire to see more aboriginal rights protected (though one could argue that perhaps the author is simply referring to that one case, but the fact that the author sides with the group's interest over the narrow interpretation of the law is enough to show the author's position). Knowing the author's position, and then reviewing 36-39, we can imagine that the author might want to overcome the "difficulties" she mentions, perhaps with the solution outlined in (B).

In general, though, (B) is correct because all the other choices are not supported at all by the text. For example, (C) is too strong - all their customs? As is often the case, the LSAT is able to write less than ideal answer choices because the question stem explicitly hedges "most likely".

Does that help?

Hi Noah, I just wanted to clarify one thing with you. You say that "the main issue of the passage is not the constitution's vague language, but how the provincial courts have handed interpreting the new constitutional rights." but the answer to question #20, which is the main point question, was (c) which says: "Constitutional language aimed at protecting aboriginal rights in Canada has so far left the protection of these rights uncertain due to the difficult task of interpreting this language" -- doesn't this basically mean that it is the constitution's vague language that is the main issue which leads to all the provincial court's interpretations? Just wanted to check that I correctly "understood" what (c) meant.. Because I understood it to be that the main issue IS about the constitution's vague language that LEADS to the rest of the "problems" (if this is a correct word) rather than how the provincial courts interpreted the constitutional rights being the MAIN ISSUE. Please clarify for me! Thanks so much!

[noah]

I love answering questions on the forum, because it really forces me to clean-up my thinking!

I should have said that it's the main problem the author wants to address, not the main issue of the passage. That discussion was specific to Q24, where we were being asked to identify what proposal the author would agree with - the author doesn't specifically express frustration with the constitutional language, but she does "complain" about the problematic interpretations employed by the provincial courts (look in that last paragraph).

The overall context of the issue is the constitutional language, but the problem the author hasis the interpretation of it. I think the answer to Q20 handles that pretty well, though personally I expected a reference to the provincial courts. As the song says, you can't always get what you want...but you get what you need! I think this discussion highlights quite nicely our job: find the best answer for each question.

I hope that helps, though with these questions, the reliance on "it's the best answer" is never that satisfying (and I apologize for the delay, I was on the road).

[LSAT-Chang]

I love answering questions on the forum, because it really forces me to clean-up my thinking!

I should have said that it's the main problem the author wants to address, not the main issue of the passage. That discussion was specific to Q24, where we were being asked to identify what proposal the author would agree with - the author doesn't specifically express frustration with the constitutional language, but she does "complain" about the problematic interpretations employed by the provincial courts (look in that last paragraph).

The overall context of the issue is the constitutional language, but the problem the author hasis the interpretation of it. I think the answer to Q20 handles that pretty well, though personally I expected a reference to the provincial courts. As the song says, you can't always get what you want...but you get what you need! I think this discussion highlights quite nicely our job: find the best answer for each question.

I hope that helps, though with these questions, the reliance on "it's the best answer" is never that satisfying (and I apologize for the delay, I was on the road).

Thanks so much Noah! I really enjoy the class and your course recordings! I may bug you with a bit of sufficient/necessary assumption questions in the near future as they are my major weakness...

[fyami001]

I'm having an issue with this statement:
"(B) is correct because all the other choices are not supported at all by the text."
because applying Noah's strategy to tackle this to answer choice D is throwing me off. If I apply the question: "Could the author disagree with this answer, given what he or she has said?" to answer choice D, I think he it would be no, he would DEFINITELY agree since the provincial courts are " interpreting and translation the necessarily general constitutional language" into "regrettable" rulings( Lines 61-64 definitely give the impression that the author believes the Supreme Court of Canada is the last chance for aboriginals to receive the rights that were promised as part of the constitutional reforms.)

However, I do see how the answer could possibly be wrong, because of how absolute and strong it is "P.C should be given NO authority to decide cases involving questions of aboriginal rights."

Thanks for the help in advance.

[timmydoeslsat]

I'm having an issue with this statement:
"(B) is correct because all the other choices are not supported at all by the text."
because applying Noah's strategy to tackle this to answer choice D is throwing me off. If I apply the question: "Could the author disagree with this answer, given what he or she has said?" to answer choice D, I think he it would be no, he would DEFINITELY agree since the provincial courts are " interpreting and translation the necessarily general constitutional language" into "regrettable" rulings( Lines 61-64 definitely give the impression that the author believes the Supreme Court of Canada is the last chance for aboriginals to receive the rights that were promised as part of the constitutional reforms.)

However, I do see how the answer could possibly be wrong, because of how absolute and strong it is "P.C should be given NO authority to decide cases involving questions of aboriginal rights."

Thanks for the help in advance.

The author is not saying that provincial courts should have no authority to decide cases involving aboriginal rights. There may be a lot of simple, run of the mill, cases where the provincial court could easily see where aboriginal people had their rights violated.

[noah]

because applying Noah's strategy to tackle this to answer choice D is throwing me off. If I apply the question: "Could the author disagree with this answer, given what he or she has said?" to answer choice D, I think it would be no, he would DEFINITELY agree since the provincial courts are " interpreting and translation the necessarily general constitutional language" into "regrettable" rulings( Lines 61-64 definitely give the impression that the author believes the Supreme Court of Canada is the last chance for aboriginals to receive the rights that were promised as part of the constitutional reforms.)

So, the author could agree. But, could he or she disagree? (that's what I suggested you focus on). Yes, the author might disagree, and for the reason you're saying - it's too strong:

However, I do see how the answer could possibly be wrong, because of how absolute and strong it is "P.C should be given NO authority to decide cases involving questions of aboriginal rights."

[geverett]

Here is some support I found for the author not taking issue so much with the vague language of the law, but with the way the lower courts have been tasked with interpreting it and also the ways the lower courts have interpreted it.

11 - 14 "enormous burden" and "necessarily general"

56 - 58 "excessively conservative"

61 - 63 "satisfactory applications"

[nflamel69]

Another problem I had with E is that it is too broad. While author would agree that in this instance with aboriginal rights the language may be unclear (although this is questionable to many people), it certainly nowhere warrants that this problem exist in the whole constitution. Slippery slope!

[allenkw90]

Good question. I must admit that I was torn between (B) and (E), but upon reflection, I see that the problem with (E) is that the main issue of the passage is not the constitution's vague language, but how the provincial courts have handed interpreting the new constitutional rights. It's easy to add-in the idea that the author is suggesting that the language is problematic when she may think that it is actually the system of allowing provincial courts to handle the interpretation that is the problem. Indeed, the last sentence might be hinting at her thought that it would be better if the Supreme Court were charged with interpreting these rights.

(B) is not explicitly supported -- indeed this question requires a significant inference/synthesis -- by lines 36-39 and 58-63. The last sentence shows the author's desire to see more aboriginal rights protected (though one could argue that perhaps the author is simply referring to that one case, but the fact that the author sides with the group's interest over the narrow interpretation of the law is enough to show the author's position). Knowing the author's position, and then reviewing 36-39, we can imagine that the author might want to overcome the "difficulties" she mentions, perhaps with the solution outlined in (B).

In general, though, (B) is correct because all the other choices are not supported at all by the text. For example, (C) is too strong - all their customs? As is often the case, the LSAT is able to write less than ideal answer choices because the question stem explicitly hedges "most likely".

Does that help?

Hi Noah.

I was also torn between (B) and (E) on this question.

I chose (E) because I thought if the language of the constitution more carefully delineated the instances to which reforms apply, it would make it easier (less burdensome) for the provincial court to interpret and translate the "necessarily general constitutional language".

Would this be too huge of a jump in interpretation?

[ohthatpatrick]

I think the key to eliminating (E) is appreciating the adverb in "necessarily" general constitutional language.

Had line 11-14 not contained that adverb, (E) would seem pretty supportable.

But since the author is saying the generality of the constitutional language (its unspecific nature) was NECESSARY, she's not faulting the constitutional language for having been written that way.

She's conceding that it NEEDED to be written that way. So she would not assent to the idea that it "should have been done differently".

People often acknowledge that laws NEED to be written in a general way, while still acknowledging the fact that this creates a tricky situation when it comes time for courts to interpret that language in relation to a specific situation.

Hope this helps.