LSAT 33, Reading Comprehension, Q25, LSATHacks

RC Question 25 Explanation, by LSATHacks

DISCUSSION: The author seems to agree that those conversations are like confessions to a priest: they should be excluded from evidence on moral grounds and for reasons of privacy.

___________

1. CORRECT. The author suggests that those conversations should also be excluded. 
2. These are modern objections. There were no social workers (as such) in Bentham’s time, so this could be hardly have been an objection made against him.
3. We’re not really told what the conflict is. The author gives these two situations as an example, and we’re expected to know why the example is reasonable. But if the author wanted to “illustrate” a conflict then they would need to give more detail about why such discussions should be privileged. 
4. Huh? I don’t even know what this means…lines 47-48 mention social interests and social values, but the terms aren’t defined.
5. Bentham’s principle excluded very few situations. The examples of parents and social workers are given to show that there may be other situations that should be excluded too. 

Hi, I'm Graeme Blake

Founder of LSAThacks; I scored a 177 on the LSAT.

I created the LSAT Mastery Seminars, which are part of the Ultimate LSAT Prep Bundle

If you like the explanations you're reading I'm 100% confident you'll enjoy the courses. Satisfaction guaranteed.

---------
Updates:

For updates, sign up for my email list. I update whenever I have new posts.