Q9 - Legal Theorist: Goverments should not

[giladedelman]

Thanks for your posts! We're really getting some interesting usernames on the forum lately ...

What does the Question Stem tell us?
Principle-Strengthen

Break down the Stimulus:
Conclusion: governments should not be allowed to use someone's diary as evidence against him in a criminal trial.
Evidence: a diary is a silent conversation with oneself, indistinguishable from keeping one's thoughts private,


Any prephrase?
How would we argue that governments SHOULD be allowed to use a diary as evidence? I mean, if a detective overheard some supervillain muttering to himself about his plan to take over the world, I would hope the courts would be able to use that soliloquy as evidence to throw the dude in Arkham. So the argument is making a pretty clear assumption: if someone means to express thoughts only to himself, governments shouldn't be able to use them to prosecute that person. We're looking for the principle that makes this assumption explicit.

Answer choice analysis:
A) is way out of scope. Interoffice memos?

B) would actually run against the grain of the argument, which is about limiting government's power.

C) is correct, then, because it expresses the assumption, giving us a bridge between the premise and the conclusion. Unless the remarks were intended for other people -- in other words, if the remarks were meant to be kept private -- governments shouldn't be allowed to use them to prosecute an individual. If we accept that principle, then the argument follows logically.

D) is incorrect because "personal correspondence" refers to the communication someone maintains with others through letters. So it's the opposite of private thoughts.

E) is no good because the whole question is, what exactly is within the government's power?

The correct answer is C.

Takeaway/Pattern: Most correct answers to Principle-Strengthen are conditional statements of the form "If Premise, then Conclusion". The author's argument here was "If something is a silent conversation with oneself, then the govt. should not be allowed to use it as evidence against the person." The correct answer says "If remarks were not intended for other people, then the govt. should not be allowed to use those remarks to prosecute the individual."

#officialexplanation

[imasexybastard]

Could someone please explain why C is correct and why D is incorrect?

[kimyooji]

I'm wondering about this too, but
I'm guessing if its because of 'the power' which is not mentioned in the stim. (I'm assuming that the power is not equal to 'should not be allowed to' but someone please explain C.

[imasexybastard]

Thanks for your posts! We're really getting some interesting usernames on the forum lately ...

So, our argument is as follows: because a diary is a silent conversation with oneself, indistinguishable from keeping one's thoughts private, governments should not be allowed to use someone's diary as evidence against him in a criminal trial.

But, why should that be the case? I mean, if a detective overheard some supervillain muttering to himself about his plan to take over the world, I would hope the courts would be able to use that soliloquy as evidence to throw the dude in Arkham.

So the argument is making a pretty clear assumption: if someone means to express thoughts only to himself, governments shouldn't be able to use them to prosecute that person. We're looking for the principle that makes this assumption explicit.

(C) is correct, then, because it expresses the assumption, giving us a bridge between the premise and the conclusion. Unless the remarks were intended for other people -- in other words, if the remarks were meant to be kept private -- governments shouldn't be allowed to use them to prosecute an individual. If we accept that principle, then the argument follows logically.

(D) is incorrect because "personal correspondence" refers to the communication someone maintains with others through letters. So it's the opposite of private thoughts.

(A) is way out of scope. Interoffice memos?

(B) would actually run against the grain of the argument, which is about limiting government's power.

(E) is no good because the whole question is, what exactly is within the government's power?

Does that clear this one up for you?

Yes, thank you very much.

[irene122]

Is D wrong also because of "confiscate"? As it may not be the same thing as "use " in the stimulus.

[LSAT-Chang]

Is D wrong also because of "confiscate"? As it may not be the same thing as "use " in the stimulus.

I had the exact same question. I incorrectly chose (D), but looking back at it, I thought it might be wrong because someone using something doesn't necessarily mean that someone confiscated it to use it. Right?

[timmydoeslsat]

D is not correct because we want to justify the idea of "governments should not be allowed to use the personal diaries of an individual..."

Even if this answer choice said "confiscate personal conversations, diaries, etc" instead of "personal correspondence" this answer choice would still be incorrect.

This is not attacking the idea of governments not being able to use these items. We do not care about confiscation.

Look at how (C) helps in this case. We know that unless always does this.

A unless B

~A unless B

So we have: Govts should not be allowed to use an indiv remarks to prosecute the indiv for a crim act unless the remarks were intended for other people.



Govts should be allowed to use an indiv remarks to prosecute the indiv for a crim act ---> the remarks were intended for other people.


~the remarks were intended for other people ---> ~Govts should be allowed to use an indiv remarks to prosecute the indiv for a crim act


This leads us to being able to conclude should not.

[LSAT-Chang]

Sorry Timmy, just to clarify: so are you saying that confiscate is what is wrong with answer choice D? Since we are concernee with the gov "using" these, so confiscate is not the correct term so wouldnt justify it. Right? Sorry just wasnt clear if that was what you were trying to say in regards to why D is wrong.

[timmydoeslsat]

Sorry Timmy, just to clarify: so are you saying that confiscate is what is wrong with answer choice D? Since we are concernee with the gov "using" these, so confiscate is not the correct term so wouldnt justify it. Right? Sorry just wasnt clear if that was what you were trying to say in regards to why D is wrong.

I would say that confiscate is not a word that can justify "use."

I also happen to disagree with the instructor above about personal correspondence. I would let the test takers have that leeway of word choice in terms of talking to oneself or diaries, etc.

[giladedelman]

Thanks for your posts! You are incorrect, though, about the meaning of "correspondence." It means communicating with someone else.

That is relevant on this question because answer (D) actually says "Governments should not have the power to confiscate an individual's personal correspondence to use as evidence..."

So I think the distinction between "confiscate" and "confiscate to use as evidence" is very tenuous. Best to bolster it with the fact that personal correspondence is NOT the same thing as a diary.