Q23

[deanmx]

Can someone please explain this question please. I thought the answer is c). I had some trouble breaking down line 21-25 and I know that was the relevant part of the passage. Thanks

[aileenann]

Ok, so first things first. If we take a look at lines 21-25, we can see a few important things. Firstly it is not clear that this is necessarily what the author things. Rather the author is citing what other people might see (look especially at "it is argued to be legitimate" on lines 24-25). So I am not sure I'd lean only on this.

Secondly, even if the author is expressing his own view in writing this, we can still see this isn't necessarily what we want to get at with this question. This is arguing that a legislature could impose something, assuming people would agree to be bound if everyone did. But this is an assumption, which doesn't sound like such a good thing. Let's look around in the passage and see if we can see anything else...

I think we see the author's opinion more clearly and directly expressed in a couple of places in the passage. I'd especially point to lines 12-14 and lines 48-50. In each of these portions, consent is mentioned - maybe not actual consent but implicit or presumed consent. So consent seems to be super important when we are talking about legislated coordination. Answer choice (D) gets at this consent issue, which seems to be the theme running through the piece. This is our correct answer.

Now let's consider (C). I think this goes too far in relating only criminal law to coordination. Consider that the last paragraph is actually devoted to an example that is not from the criminal law. From this alone, criminal law is clearly not required for coordination.

I hope this helps. Please let me know if you have questions or additional comments of your own!

[deanmx]

The reason I eliminated D) was because of the phrase "rational people". Is it justified to pick a choice when this part of the choice wasn't mentioned in the passage? Because the passage talks about consent from people in general but not necessarily consent on the part of the rational people, so I thought that was a distinction that wasn't mentioned in the passage. Thanks again

[tommyid1]

Hey deanmx, I eliminated D too cause it said, "Rational people" and I thought, "Hey, he wasn't talking specifically about rational people."

But you know what, he repeatedly mentioned the concept of agreeing to being bound by the coordination rules out of the interest of the members themselves; check out lines 12-14, lines 41-42, and lines 47-48. They all talk about people agreeing to behave in coordination out of their own interest. We can infer that that's a rational/reasonable thing to do, right?

At least, that's one way I think we can look at it. Anyone else?

[tommywallach]

Hey Guys,

Great conversation here. Never forget that LSAT questions often don't give you a perfect answer...you just have to pick the best one you have. In this case, all the other chances make mistakes.

A) This is the opposite of what the passage says. The first sentence says "such theorists would oppose laws that force people to act purely for their own good." But this answer leaves out the word "purely." Everything the passage goes on to say turns out to be for the good of the person in question (e.g. driving on the same side of the road).

B) The rule mentioned in the last paragraph would be instituted by a government lawmaking organization.

C) The rule mentioned in the last paragraph would not have any criminal penalties associated with it (Lance Armstrong isn't going to jail).

E) This is way out of scope.



So the best answer is (D). Tommy (the other Tommy!) mentioned a few great places to look in the passage. In each one, you can see the author saying that folks have to agree to the rules ("On the assumption that all people would voluntarily agree to be subject to a coordination rule backed by criminal sanctions.")

Hope that helps!

-t

[hyewonkim89]

Hey Guys,

Great conversation here. Never forget that LSAT questions often don't give you a perfect answer...you just have to pick the best one you have. In this case, all the other chances make mistakes.

A) This is the opposite of what the passage says. The first sentence says "such theorists would oppose laws that force people to act purely for their own good." But this answer leaves out the word "purely." Everything the passage goes on to say turns out to be for the good of the person in question (e.g. driving on the same side of the road).

B) The rule mentioned in the last paragraph would be instituted by a government lawmaking organization.

C) The rule mentioned in the last paragraph would not have any criminal penalties associated with it (Lance Armstrong isn't going to jail).

E) This is way out of scope.



So the best answer is (D). Tommy (the other Tommy!) mentioned a few great places to look in the passage. In each one, you can see the author saying that folks have to agree to the rules ("On the assumption that all people would voluntarily agree to be subject to a coordination rule backed by criminal sanctions.")

Hope that helps!

-t

Hi Tommy,

Thanks for your helpful explanation.

But I'm still a bit confused on your explanation on A.

You said A is opposite of what the passage says. But isn't A actually saying what the passage says since the passage says theorists oppose laws that force people to act purely for their own good and the answer choice A says rules do not force individuals to act for their own good?

Thanks in advance!

[tommywallach]

Hey Hye,

You're absolutely right. Well, you're 80% right. : )

I was wrong to say this is the opposite of what the passage says. You're right that I missed the "not". However, the reason this is wrong is that the passage does not argue that rules can't force people to act for their own good, but only that they can't force individuals to act purely for their own good. For example, the law with driving on the same side of the street is both for their own good and for the good of everyone else.

Good catch!

-t

[chunsunb]

I thought for a few minutes why (C) is wrong.

I think it is wrong because, more than anything else, it doesn't act as a part of the justification. That is, even if (C) were necessary for the actual coordination system to be effective, it's not really a factor contributing to the justification of the compelling coordination.

Think about it. Even without having read the passage, the following sentence wouldn't really make sense: "Compelling coordination of people's activities is justified only if there exists assurance that criminal penalties are provided as a means of securing compliance with such rules."

On the other hand, this sentence would make sense: "Compelling coordination of people's activities is justified only if there exists some form of consent on the part of rational people who are subject to such rules."

[db_8400]

I got this question wrong as well but D seemed more clear to me around lines 21 " On the assumption that all people would voluntarily agree", I dont think I even read question D I skipped it after selecting C, had I read it properly I think I wouldve picked it b/c of lines 21.

[PhoebeL747]

I eliminated D initially because I thought the question stem is asking the Necessary condition, and I thought consent is only a sufficient condition (lines 12-14, 23-25) . Is it not a good place to apply conditional logic because the question stem only asks "generally necessary"?