Q25

[norginz]

Hi,

Can you explain to me why the answer to Q25 is A and not E?

Thanks

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

The correct answer doesn't just come from lines 49-50. Instead it comes from the surrounding text. Let's look at lines 45-48. The passage is talking about exclusions for certain kinds of evidence. So for example sacramental confessions would be excluded. Then the author comes in on line 49 and says, "well if we're going to exclude some forms of evidence, why don't these other two examples qualify for protection?"

The author thinks that these other two situations should be excluded from evidence. That would suggest that the author thinks the application of the nonexclusion principle would be questionable. Thus, answer choice (A) describes the author's intent in bringing up those two situations.

For answer choice (E)... Remember those situations were not exceptions. They were covered by the nonexclusion principle. That's why the author was disappointed and asked why not protect those conversations by making them exclusions. So for now, they are not excluded, but answer choice (E) implies that they are.

Does that clear this one up?

[norginz]

Yeah I see what your are saying. Thanks.

[romanmuffin]

The reason I didn't choose A is because I didn't think it the "application of the nonexclusion principle" that was questionable as much as it was the permitted exclusion which Bentham's nonexclusion principle encompasses. In fact, I thought that this distinction was the trick the LSAT writer was trying to pull, so I quickly crossed it off.

I chose E, and I get the explanation as to why its wrong. I thought by bringing up these conversations between social workers and clients, the author is trying to press the case that the exceptions (sacramental confessions) could cover a wide range of situations (conversations between social workers and their clients). But I guess there is a difference between what could be and what actually IS. Is this line of reasoning correct?

And while I believed C was incorrect, I can't quite put my finger on why its incorrect. I guess I don't quite understand the role social interests play in granting exclusions.

Can someone help me through this?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

But I guess there is a difference between what could be and what actually IS. Is this line of reasoning correct?

That's right!

Let's look at the incorrect answers on this one:

(B) is unsupported. They weren't cited as objections to Bentham's proposal, but rather the author's own additional ideas of places where social interests might outweigh the desire for relevant evidence.
(C) is unsupported. The conflict is not between competing social interests, but rather between those interests and the desire for relevant evidence.
(D) is an interesting twist of language, but the author was not drawing a distinction, but rather extending an exception.
(E) is unsupported. These are not situations that would have fallen under Bentham's exceptions to the nonexclusion proposal.

Hope that helps!