LSAT 135 | Section 3 | Reading Comprehension: Q16

RC Question 16 Explanation

DISCUSSION: You should justify the answer you choose by finding a specific line in the passage.

___________

1. CORRECT. The blackmail paradox exists because free speech is normally legal and protected (lines 9-10). Likewise, it’s legal to ask someone for money. The paradox is that you can’t ask someone for money to prevent you from speaking – that’s blackmail.
    
   The final paragraph of Passage B shows there was no paradox in Roman law. This is because there were no free speech protections in ancient Rome. You had no right to harm someone by speaking against them, even if what you said was true, and even if you weren’t threatening them. So if merely speaking the truth was illegal, then blackmail was definitely illegal – no paradox required.
2. There was no specific Roman law against blackmail. But blackmail was definitely still illegal if it harmed the victim (lines 41-43). 
3. We have no idea how many freedoms are granted by Roman or North American law in general. We’re only told about blackmail.
4. This is true of Roman law, not North American law. Normally free speech protects you in North America (lines 9-10), even if you harm someone. The third paragraph of Passage A gives the best justification for why blackmail is illegal in North America: you’re using someone else as a threat.
5. We’re not told if US and Canadian law recognizes the public’s interest in certain information being disclosed. It’s implied though, since our law protects free speech (lines 9-10).