LR Question 16 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Judge: The defendant admits noncompliance with national…
QUESTION TYPE: Principle – Strengthen
CONCLUSION: The excuse is unacceptable.
REASONING: The defendant was charged with not complying with national codes, rather than local codes. He pleaded ignorance of which code applied.
ANALYSIS: The judge implies that ignorance of the law would have been an excuse if the code had been local. You need to find a reason why that would have been ok, or why violating national codes is inexcusable.
The right answer shows that anything in national codes is also in local codes. So the defendant was aware he was breaking the law no matter which code applied. I’ll explain with an example.
Suppose that Hawaii has it’s own criminal code. The only new law is that you can’t wear funny hats. Every other federal law is also a crime.
You’re on a small island. Not sure if it’s part of hawaii or the mainland US.
You can’t be sure if you’re allowed to wear a funny hat. You don’t know which code applies.
You can be sure murder is wrong. That’s true whichever code applies.
___________
- If the codes don’t overlap, then they’re different. But this doesn’t tell us what makes national codes worse to violate.
- So? Presumably there are still penalties for violating both types of code. This doesn’t say that it’s ok to violate local codes.
- CORRECT. Since the defendant violated national codes, then he also violated the local code. So his excuse that he didn’t know which code applied is irrelevant. Both codes prohibited his behavior.
- This hurts the judge’s argument, since the judge said non-compliance with a local code due to ignorance might have been ok.
- This doesn’t tell us that it’s ok to violate any laws.
More Resources for Principle Questions
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Principle questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers principle questions.
Man, I don’t know why, but this one just broke my brain. Untimed, got every other one right in the section but stared at this one for like 7 minutes and could not decide between B and C. The explanation is helpful but I’m not sure what skill I’d need to improve on to not miss ones like these. Something in the abstractness of trying to visual how codes compare to each other, and holding in my mind the alleged the defendant’s claimed belief, and which situations would make the claim excusable or not. I don’t know. Probably need to go have a snack. This site has been a lifesaver though.
Sometimes stepping away is exactly what you need!
There’s no specific skill to practice here other than drilling Principle questions to get better at them. If you’re new to the LSAT or haven’t previously had a study plan, it may also be wise to strategize which types of questions you start with in order to build the foundations of logic before breaking down more complex ones. But if you’re getting everything else correct untimed, that’s definitely a great sign.
Very glad to hear the site is helpful!
Hi,
I am confused here. It feels like your explanation to E contradicts lines 5-7. Could you please clarify?
We’re looking for an answer choice that (1) gives a reason why the defendant’s non-compliance with local codes might be acceptable or (2) explains why his non-compliance with national code codes is unacceptable.
Lines 5-7 relate to (1) — is there any potential reason that his non-compliance with local codes might be acceptable? The explanation for (E) doesn’t contradict these lines at all; it just points out that (E) gives us no reason why his non-compliance with local codes might be acceptable, and that’s why this answer choice is incorrect.