Q19

[vik]

Q19 E looks good to me becuase
i) One country making it illegal to drive motorcycles is like the US banning blackmail, and
ii) Another country legally permitting it but fining some motorists is like Rome letting only some people have free speech.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Good question. Dealing with analogous situations is difficult because it requires an ability to generalize the relationship. The Canadian and U.S. common law systems both explicitly make blackmail illegal (lines 29-31), whereas in classical Roman law it was not illegal (lines 32-33), though harming someone else was (lines 33-37). Since the revelation would cause harm, the act was generally impermissible, though there was room for some exceptions relating to issues useful to the authorities to be made public.

Answer choice (D) does a nice job of lining up the various pieces here. In one country the act is explicitly illegal, in another it is not, though was impermissible due to a more broadly appealing rule, and possesses some exceptions.

Let's look at the incorrect answers:

(A) does not make the act explicitly forbidden in the first country and so is not analogous.
(B) has the second country with an explicit ban, but classical Roman law had no such stipulation.
(C) does not make some act explicitly forbidden in the first country, and this answer choice would imply that the second country had a explicit ban (though classical Roman law did not explicitly make blackmail illegal).
(E) would imply that any rider who violated the speed limit would face a higher penalty than other motorists. But where are the exceptions? Classical Roman law protected the telling of harmful information when it was useful to the authorities and was legitimate. Different penalties for riders and for motorists does amount to protected exceptions to the general rule.

Hope that helps!

[vik]

Matt, thanks! E would imply Rome would fine those who engaged in blackmail higher than others. The passage does not talk of such selective punishment.

[samantha.rose.shulman]

19. (D)
Question Type: Synthesis
This question is quite difficult because it requires us to deal with an analogous situation. We must make sure we fully understand the relationship between the ways in which Canadian and U.S. common law and classical Roman law treat blackmail before moving to our answer choices.

Passage A explicitly states that Canadian and U.S. common law consider blackmail illegal. Classical Roman law on the other hand, as described in Passage B, states that it is not necessary to consider blackmail illegal. Instead, blackmail is considered unlawful because it fits in a broader category of harming someone else, which is illegal.

Let’s make this more general before we look at our answer choices: one system considers an action explicitly illegal. The other system doesn’t consider this same action illegal in its own category because doing so isn’t necessary. Instead this other system believes that there is another category of illegal acts that this action is a part of. Therefore, it is illegal indirectly.

(A) is incorrect. This answer choice does not make an action explicitly illegal, and therefore cannot be analogous.
(B) is incorrect. In this scenario both countries consider something explicitly illegal. We need a situation where one system considers something explicitly illegal and another does not.
(C) describes the relationship as one of many vs few. This is not a match. Eliminate!
(E) is tempting, but incorrect. This has one piece we need - one country considers an action (driving motorcycles with racing-grade engines) as explicitly illegal - but the second half doesn’t fit. We need another country that not only doesn’t consider this same action explicitly illegal, but also believes that there is another category of illegal acts that this not-explicitly-illegal action is a part of. This answer choice just indicates that the other country has increased fines. This doesn’t match.

(D) is the best fit. We have two countries, one that considers an action (felons owning guns) explicitly illegal, and another that does not. However, the second country has another law that is more general (gun ownership is illegal for everyone but police and military) that includes the other group, making the other law unnecessary.

[xinglipku]

Hi,

I don't quite understand this one. It seems to me that Passage A is more generally prohibiting blackmail and Passage B just prohibits those causing harm to others (with some exceptions). Can you please explain more about how "illegal for felons" connects to Passage A? And what is Passage A prohibiting? (if not general practice of blackmail?)

[joseph.m.kirby]

In Passage A, it is noted that American and Canadian common law specifically address blackmail because American and Canadian common law don't have a broad law that already handles it. In Passage B, it is noted that blackmail doesn't have to be specifically addressed because a broader law already absorbs the issue.

So, in (D), analogizing with Passage A, a country has to ban guns for felons because there is not a specific law already addressing it. In analogizing with Passage B, a law targeting felons isn't needed because there is a broader law already at play (it's illegal for everyone, with exceptions).

Overall, I thought this analogy was awkward and difficult compared to other analogy questions I've seen.

[shirando21]

I think D is right more because of the "but" part. In Roman law, black mail is assumed to be illegal unless the possessor of the information can prove such revelation is made for a legitimate purpose.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Nice work Joseph! Your explanation for why answer choice (D) matches the relationship between the passages is really good. And Shirando's addition of the exception clause makes it complete!

Great discussion!

[aznriceboi17]

Hi Matt, in your explanation you noted that for each of the answer choices which provide two examples X and Y, if X didn't match up with the US/Canada structure of an explicit ban, you immediately ruled it out.

When I've worked through these parallel problems, if the stimulus presents in order A and B, then for the answer choices which present in order X and Y, I've looked at the possibility of X matching to A and Y matching to B, but also at the X-B Y-A possibility. Has the correct answer to such a question ever done this 'cross matching'? Or can I save myself time in the future by only considering the X-A Y-B match?

[ohthatpatrick]

I'll field this one for Matt.

To my recollection, I've never seen that cross-matching occur.

Technically, it could, unless the question stem explicitly spelled out "which of the following is most analogous to the way that US/Canada treats blackmail vs. the way Classic Rome did, respectively."

But LSAT seems to play nicely with the 'respectively' order. So I would, on the first pass, ditch looking for cross-matches. It's incredibly unlikely they'll make it that confusing, so you're better off simplifying how you're reading them.

[Camiller]

Will an LSAT geek please help my understand why my reasoning for choosing (A) is wrong. I chose (A) because I viewed it as an analogous description of the relationship described in the correct answer of question 17, which asks for a statement that is true of blackmail in Canada in the U.S. but not true of blackmail in Rome. In the U.S. and Canada, blackmail ("working as carpenter") is the combination of two legal acts ("legally requires" & "to be licensed and insured"); Rome ("another country") has no such requirement.

[ohthatpatrick]

Differentiate between legally ALLOWED and legally REQUIRED.

Q17 is talking about two separate acts that are legally ALLOWED (charging someone money for something and public free speech).

Q19 (A) is talking about legal REQUIREMENTS. In the US and Canada, are you REQUIRED to charge someone money? Are you REQUIRED to publicly disclose something embarrassing?

Nothing in Blackmail law for either system REQUIRES people to do anything. Well almost nothing. In Roman law, if you want to publicly disclose some sensitive information about someone else, then you're REQUIRED to have a good public-interest justification.

[JeffW669]

Just wanted to say, this is by far the hardest RC question I have faced so far, out of maybe 8 sections. This is the only question I've gotten wrong twice (once during the timed test, once during review). The two passages differ in so many different ways that it seemed like there were 100 different ways to define their relationship:

U.S./Canadian law vs. Ancient Roman law
Blackmail paradox vs. no blackmail paradox
Blackmail explicitly prohibited vs. blackmail implicitly prohibited via encompassing prohibition
Misuse of third party vs. doing harm to victim
Being concerned with legal and illegal acts vs. not considering the legality or illegality of an action itself

Really, this entire RC section was ridiculously hard.