Q15

[Michelle5]

I have no idea how to understand what the state's chip is! I chose between A and E but can't you say that the blackmailers are using their authority to NOT determine a crime (A)? Thank you!

[maryadkins]

Ha, when I first read your question, I thought, "What on earth is the state's chip?"

It's a bargaining chip. The person blackmailing is threatening to inform the state about the crime, and using that threat to extort money from the victim. (B) gets at this--it's the state's power to learn about the crime and do something about it that's being sold by the blackmailer!

Does this make more sense?

[Michelle5]

Makes so much sense thank you! I did not catch the part of the person blackmailing as them having the power and "going to" inform the state/police. lol i've been watching too much telenovelas, in my head they were going to tell someone else but with no authority haha (the evil uncle) thank you for the insight!!

[samantha.rose.shulman]

15. (B)
Question Type: Inference (27-29)
This question requires us to look back at a specific phrase in the passage and determine its intended meaning. The question gives us the specific line where this phrase appears, but it is important to look at the lines before and after (the context) to truly understand its meaning.

What is the state’s chip? What do we know about this chip if the blackmailers are able to bargain with it? We know that the chip is some sort of power or advantage that the state has, and that the blackmailers are using it. With this in mind, let’s look at our answers choices.

(A) is tempting, but an unsupported interpretation. Determine what actions are crimes? We already know that criminal acts have been committed! This determination of whether or not an action is criminal is unnecessary.
(C) is an unsupported interpretation. Do we know whether or not blackmailers are trying to prevent crimes? No! Also, haven’t these crimes already occurred? Eliminate!
(D) is out of scope. Exclusive reliance?
(E) is out of scope. Compelling private citizens to testify in court?

(B) is correct. When a blackmailer threatens to turn in a criminal, the blackmailer is actually threatening the implied punishment that will follow. But who will follow through with this punishment? It is the state’s power (or chip) to hold criminals responsible for their illegal actions. The blackmailers are therefore bargaining with the state’s power.

[dfay91]

15. (B)
Question Type: Inference (27-29)
This question requires us to look back at a specific phrase in the passage and determine its intended meaning. The question gives us the specific line where this phrase appears, but it is important to look at the lines before and after (the context) to truly understand its meaning.

What is the state’s chip? What do we know about this chip if the blackmailers are able to bargain with it? We know that the chip is some sort of power or advantage that the state has, and that the blackmailers are using it. With this in mind, let’s look at our answers choices.

(A) is tempting, but an unsupported interpretation. Determine what actions are crimes? We already know that criminal acts have been committed! This determination of whether or not an action is criminal is unnecessary.
(C) is an unsupported interpretation. Do we know whether or not blackmailers are trying to prevent crimes? No! Also, haven’t these crimes already occurred? Eliminate!
(D) is out of scope. Exclusive reliance?
(E) is out of scope. Compelling private citizens to testify in court?

(B) is correct. When a blackmailer threatens to turn in a criminal, the blackmailer is actually threatening the implied punishment that will follow. But who will follow through with this punishment? It is the state’s power (or chip) to hold criminals responsible for their illegal actions. The blackmailers are therefore bargaining with the state’s power.

If B) said any of what you say it says, then I could completely agree with you. But B) does not have the word "power" or "state" or "punishment" in it. It very vaguely says "interest in learning about crimes." A government can learn about crimes all it wants to (consider jaywalking, a crime which representatives of the government, i.e. police, learn about all the time without punishing). How on earth am I supposed to make the leap from "learning about crimes" to "will use its power to punish said crimes" when neither the power nor an interest in using it are ever mentioned in the answer! At least A) talks about legal authority; that seems stronger than a "meh" interest in learning about crimes that are committed.

[kaseyb002]

15. (B)
Question Type: Inference (27-29)
This question requires us to look back at a specific phrase in the passage and determine its intended meaning. The question gives us the specific line where this phrase appears, but it is important to look at the lines before and after (the context) to truly understand its meaning.

What is the state’s chip? What do we know about this chip if the blackmailers are able to bargain with it? We know that the chip is some sort of power or advantage that the state has, and that the blackmailers are using it. With this in mind, let’s look at our answers choices.

(A) is tempting, but an unsupported interpretation. Determine what actions are crimes? We already know that criminal acts have been committed! This determination of whether or not an action is criminal is unnecessary.
(C) is an unsupported interpretation. Do we know whether or not blackmailers are trying to prevent crimes? No! Also, haven’t these crimes already occurred? Eliminate!
(D) is out of scope. Exclusive reliance?
(E) is out of scope. Compelling private citizens to testify in court?

(B) is correct. When a blackmailer threatens to turn in a criminal, the blackmailer is actually threatening the implied punishment that will follow. But who will follow through with this punishment? It is the state’s power (or chip) to hold criminals responsible for their illegal actions. The blackmailers are therefore bargaining with the state’s power.

If B) said any of what you say it says, then I could completely agree with you. But B) does not have the word "power" or "state" or "punishment" in it. It very vaguely says "interest in learning about crimes." A government can learn about crimes all it wants to (consider jaywalking, a crime which representatives of the government, i.e. police, learn about all the time without punishing). How on earth am I supposed to make the leap from "learning about crimes" to "will use its power to punish said crimes" when neither the power nor an interest in using it are ever mentioned in the answer! At least A) talks about legal authority; that seems stronger than a "meh" interest in learning about crimes that are committed.

I had the same problem here. Perhaps the word "legitmate" could be saying "in their power" or something like that.

[rbkfrye]

I chose A too, but I believe the issue is that a "bargaining chip" is at risk of being lost. The state is at no risk of losing its authority if the blackmailer does not reveal the crime, but it might lose the ability to learn about the crime.

[LSATeater]

[b]15. (B)

If B) said any of what you say it says, then I could completely agree with you. But B) does not have the word "power" or "state" or "punishment" in it. It very vaguely says "interest in learning about crimes." A government can learn about crimes all it wants to (consider jaywalking, a crime which representatives of the government, i.e. police, learn about all the time without punishing). How on earth am I supposed to make the leap from "learning about crimes" to "will use its power to punish said crimes" when neither the power nor an interest in using it are ever mentioned in the answer! At least A) talks about legal authority; that seems stronger than a "meh" interest in learning about crimes that are committed.

It's comforting to know that I was not the only one uncomfortable with this question.

Your frustration is completely valid: simply having mere interest in a crime is not even remotely the same as assuring that punishment will follow. Nonetheless, the author states that "for example, when a blackmailer threatens to turn in a criminal..." and this basically tells us that the person being blackmailed in this example has committed a crime. Crime has occurred and this is a fact. So, choice A becomes entirely redundant because it's not like the government's potential reiteration of this truth is what the blackmailer is using as leverage. The "state's chip" is so much more than just a proclamation of crime. The "interest" in choice B leaves the possibilities of proclamation, conviction, and sentencing all open so it is a much better fit.

Also, your gripe with choice B and the point you made about unpunished crimes such as jaywalking also apply to choice A. I really dislike these non-airtight answer choices as well but that's LSAT reading comprehension for ya. I've reached the conclusion that it is best when facing such vague choices to choose ones with the most breathing room.

Hope I helped.

[twu]

The way I do reference question is to take the word or phrase out and fill in the blank before reading the answer choices. In this question, if you take out "the state's chip" the sentence becomes:

"when a blackmailer threatens to turn in a criminal unless paid money, the blackmailer is bargaining with ____"

Then the author goes on to talk about "the misuse of a third party". Therefore it is natural we fill in the blank with something like "the third party's interest in getting involved." In this sense choice B is closest to our paraphrase. All other choices are one or two steps too far away.