Q16

[andrea.devas]

Hi,
Can someone explain why (E) is incorrect and that (A) is the correct answer? I felt that it was pretty safe to assume that Canadian and U.S Common law do not recognize public authority interest in blackmail type issues.

[robowarren]

Agreed! Could someone explain? Thanks!

[mic_a_chav87]

I don't have an incredibly thorough explanation, but I think the trick to this one goes back to dealing with the "state's chip."
If blackmailing a criminal is going to work, either he gives you money or you turn him in, it's pretty safe to say government officials have a vested interest in your information. I mean, if they didn't the criminal would laugh and say "go ahead, tell them, they don't care!"

It's very subtle in the passage, and easily missed.

[evelina.chang]

Thanks for the explanation for (E), but I still don't understand where (A) is found in the passage.

[mic_a_chav87]

As stated in passage A, the blackmail paradox is a mixture of legal free speech and the legal right to seek money.
In passage B it both mentions that Roman law didn't care about the legality of blackmail in a strict sense, so already there's no paradox, and it also mentions that saying something harmful towards another person that serves no interest of the public can likewise be punished, so there's not even free speech!

Without the legal right to free speech, there can be no blackmail paradox.

[samantha.rose.shulman]

Here's another explanation!

16. (A)
Question Type: Inference (1-6)
This question requires that we use information in the text to make an inference. We have to determine what would be most strongly supported by both passages.

Let's try working these answer choices from wrong to right.

(A) Tough choice! It seems logical to infer that the blackmail paradox didn’t exist in Rome; the paradox revolves around questions of legality, and the legality of blackmail wasn’t even part of the Roman system. But was it specifically because free speech protections comparable to those in Canada and the U.S. were not an issue? This isn’t as clear. Let's leave (A) for now and move on.

(B) is wildly out of scope. We have no information regarding how widely blackmail was practiced in Roman antiquity in comparison to now. Also, now where? In the United States and Canada? Or somewhere else?

(C) is also out of scope. This is much too far a leap, since it is making a claim about common law in general. These passages specifically discuss common law with regards to blackmail. We have no idea how many freedoms each system grants.

(D) is contradicted in Passage A, which clearly states the best justification for the illegality of blackmail is involves the triangular nature of blackmail, not the victim’s reputation.

(E) is tempting, but an unsupported interpretation. We know that Roman law recognizes the interest of public authorities in having certain types of information revealed, but we cannot infer from this that Canadian and U.S. common law does not also recognize this interest.

Looks like (A) is our best option. Passage A tells us that the blackmail paradox stems from the fact that two of the actions involved in blackmail are, on their own, legal. The two actions specifically involve the legal right to free speech and the legal right to seek money. However, when these legal actions are combined they become something illegal. Passage B mentions that it is not about legality or illegality. Protections (like freedom of speech or the right to seek money) wouldn’t have been an issue.

[ReginaP412]

"(A) Tough choice! It seems logical to infer that the blackmail paradox didn’t exist in Rome; the paradox revolves around questions of legality, and the legality of blackmail wasn’t even part of the Roman system. But was it specifically because free speech protections comparable to those in Canada and the U.S. were not an issue? This isn’t as clear. Let's leave (A) for now and move on."

"(E) is tempting, but an unsupported interpretation. We know that Roman law recognizes the interest of public authorities in having certain types of information revealed, but we cannot infer from this that Canadian and U.S. common law does not also recognize this interest."

^^ Can someone help clarify why one is ok to infer (A) while the other (E) is not?

Thanks!

[Misti Duvall]

"(A) Tough choice! It seems logical to infer that the blackmail paradox didn’t exist in Rome; the paradox revolves around questions of legality, and the legality of blackmail wasn’t even part of the Roman system. But was it specifically because free speech protections comparable to those in Canada and the U.S. were not an issue? This isn’t as clear. Let's leave (A) for now and move on."

"(E) is tempting, but an unsupported interpretation. We know that Roman law recognizes the interest of public authorities in having certain types of information revealed, but we cannot infer from this that Canadian and U.S. common law does not also recognize this interest."

^^ Can someone help clarify why one is ok to infer (A) while the other (E) is not?

Thanks!

Hi Regina!

Checking in to see if you have a specific question or if you were just posting thanks for the previous explanation? Looks like a pretty good explanation to me, but happy to clarify further if needed. They key re E, I think, is that we don't get any information in Passage A about whether or not Canadian/US law recognizes the interest noted.