Q17

[samantha.rose.shulman]

17. (A)
Question Type: Inference (1-2, 18-19, 25-26)
We need something that is true of the systems in Passage A but not B. So what’s the big difference between them? Let’s utilize our scale! The author of Passage A believes blackmail should be illegal through its own special category, while the author of Passage B thinks this is unnecessary.

One effective approach is to first eliminate answer choices that are not true under U.S. and Canadian common law.

(C) is a contradictory interpretation. The laws pertaining to blackmail are not meant to be enforced precisely as written. This is clearly stated in lines 18-19.

(E) is a contradictory interpretation. Canadian and U.S. common law do have a special category pertaining to blackmail. This is made evident in lines 1-2.

We are left with (A), (B), and (D), all of which are true under Canadian and U.S. common law. (A) is supported in the first paragraph of Passage A. (B) is supported by the last paragraph of Passage A. (D) is supported in lines 25-26.

Now our task shifts to finding which of these answer choices would not be true under Classical Roman law.

(B) is an unsupported interpretation. Where in Passage B does it imply Classical Roman law would consider blackmail a non-triangular structure? It doesn’t. Eliminate!

(D) is another unsupported interpretation. Passage B does not specify who blackmail victims pay and don’t pay to avoid being harmed.

(A) is the correct answer. Passage B clearly states that Classical Roman law was first concerned with harm rather than legality.

[dfay91]

This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If, as passage B states, Roman jurists did not consider the "legality or illegality of the action itself" (lines 36-37), then doesn't that mean they were tacitly legal since the punishment for blackmail would not be predicated on legality? And if blackmail was a revelation designed solely to bring shame to the victim, rather than remuneration to the perpetrator based on the victim's fear of legal punishment, then doesn't that eliminate the third point of the "triangular arrangement"?

Roman blackmailers received money from blackmailed solely because the victim was afraid it would bring shame to his reputation, not because he was afraid of legal consequences for his actions (since legality or illegality was apparently irrelevant). That makes it a 2 way street, which seems to make B) an attractive answer.

[daytimeowl17]

I chose A right away, cuz as we've seen in Q16, the Roman law didn't really have the strong legal protection towards free speech. (The last sentence of Passage B says, saying something true doesn't lawfully justifies the act of revealing it. Not so much freedom in speech there.) So the Roman law does not care for (not as much as US/Canadian law does) for the legality of free speech, which makes A not applicable to it. To me, it was almost just an inference question from Q16. Hope it helps!