LSAT 113 | Section 4 | Logical Reasoning: Q21

LR Question 21 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Political theorist: Newly enacted laws need a period…

QUESTION TYPE: Principle – Strengthen

CONCLUSION: Laws should have an immunity period before they can be repealed.

REASONING: The long term benefits of laws often aren’t obvious, while the short term pain of a law is usually clear.

ANALYSIS: The theorist says we should wait. The consequences of a law are only clear in the long run. He thinks the long run is most important.

___________

1. Not quite. The theorist argues repeal should be independent of what voters think the short-term consequences will be. But if voters correctly think the long term consequences are bad then maybe we should repeal a law.
2. CORRECT. If the long term consequences are most important then it makes sense to wait until the long term consequences become clear. 
3. The theorist doesn’t compare the difficulty of repeal to how much work it took to pass a law. Their main point is just that we should wait a bit, no matter if the law was hard or easy to pass. 
4. The theorist doesn’t think short term consequences are that important. They’re interested in the long term.
5. This doesn’t make sense. If a law provided tons of benefit in the short run and only some benefit in the long run, we should still pass it. It’s beneficial all around.