LSAT 146 | Section 4 | Reading Comprehension: Q4

RC Question 4 Explanation

DISCUSSION: The two authors disagree completely. Their main point of disagreement is about whether nullification is good or bad. But that’s too easy. This question instead asks if you can see the more specific disagreement in their reasoning that leads to their differing conclusions.

The author of passage A focussed on who should be debating laws. They thought it was a matter for legislatures and that laws should be debated openly and publicly.

The author of passage B instead thinks juries should be allowed to interpret the intent of the legislature (see paragraph 2) and tell the legislature that laws are bad (paragraph 3).

This is a point at issue question. It’s like a logical reasoning question. To be right, an answer must be:

1. Something both authors mention, and
2. They disagree about

Many wrong answers are things only one author mentions.

___________

1. The author of passage B never mentioned jury reasoning.
2. Both authors likely agree with this. Who would disagree with this statement? All it means is “In our society, people are able to question and debate laws.”
    
   If no one would disagree with a statement, it can’t be the answer.
3. The author of passage A didn’t mention jury bias as a cause of worry. Instead, their worries were that:
    
   1. Sometimes juries lacked information (because it was withheld from them).
   2. It’s not the proper role of juries to debate laws.
    
   Bias isn’t the issue. It’s instead like someone’s believing, correctly, that it’s not the role of the president to preside over criminal cases. That’s the role of judges.
4. CORRECT. Author A disagrees with this – see lines 23-28. Author B agrees (see paragraph 2, where they say juries can help legislatures by interpreting general laws.)
5. Passage B says that police and prosecutors sometimes overstep their discretion, but that doesn’t mean they think they should have less discretion.
    
   You likely think sometimes people abuse their freedoms, but that doesn’t mean you think we should abandon freedom and move to totalitarianism.