RC Question 27 Explanation, by LSATHacks
DISCUSSION: The author’s position on employment contract cases was in the third paragraph: they think monetary damages should be preferred where possible. Courts often lack the resources to enforce specific performance in such cases, and ordering it would often lead to great personal hardship for both the plaintiff and defendant in such cases.
To strengthen this position, we should show either that:
- Money is available, or
- It is generally distasteful to employers/employees to undergo specific performance.
___________
- This weakens the author’s argument. If courts can’t enforce monetary damages, then it’s not clear why money is preferred over specific performance.
- This just puts everything on an even footing. Also, it’s obvious, and therefore doesn’t add much. Any court order is coercion: “do what we say, or go to jail”. So this answer tells us nothing new.
- CORRECT. The author argued that instead of specific performance, courts should award money. This shows that the defendants actually have money to award.
- Why would this matter? The author didn’t talk much about contracts for services in general. And “different” could go either way: it could mean different in a way that argues for or argues against using specific performance. Without knowing which way things are different, this answer tells us nothing.
- The author suggests generally it is employers who sue potential employees (who refused to work). I am not quite sure what this answer is getting at. I think it is saying: sometimes, employees’ rights are more important than employers’ financial loss, and therefore the employer loses their contract case.
Want a free Reading Comp lesson?
Get a free sample of the Reading Comprehension Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving RC questions
Hi, I'm Graeme Blake
I created LSATHacks, and scored a 177 on the LSAT.
Check out LSATHacks All Access
It's your one stop shop for LSAT prep: 1000s more explanations, and courses for both intro and advanced students. Lifetime access to everything on LSATHacks and anything I add. Plus a consult with me to get you started on the right track.
---------
Socials and Updates: If you have any questions, you can can check out my TikTok videos or email me.For updates, sign up for my email list. I update whenever I have new posts.
I could use some clarification on (C).
The way I read P3 and the author’s argument is that the argument is conditional upon monetary compensation being possible; therefore, I don’t see how adding in that “monetary compensation is usually possible” strengthens the argument.
I’m looking especially at the following lines: “Even if a court had the resources necessary to ensure that such a contract would be enforced according to its terms, it would often do better to avoid imposing such uncomfortable conditions. Awarding monetary compensation [i][b]where possible[/b][/i] in such cases permits the court to steer clear…”
Help??? Thanks!