Reading Comprehension

PT103 · S4 · P1 · Q5 Compulsory National Service

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension question.

Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one
Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step
81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Opponents of compulsory national service claim that such a program is not in keeping with the liberal principles upon which Western democracies are founded.

Topic

Compulsory national service and its compatibility with liberal democratic principles

Framework

Challenge Position

Main Point

The author argues that compulsory national service is not in conflict with liberal principles, as shared sacrifice and community benefit are fundamental to the social contract that supports individual rights in a democracy. The Most Valuable Sentence is the final one: (End of passage)

P1: Rebuttal to Opponents – Framing the Social Agreement

Opponents claim national service violates liberal values, but the author counters this by emphasizing the underlying social agreement that enables individual rights; just like taxation for law enforcement, shared sacrifice underpins community and liberty.

P2: Drawing the Analogy to National Defense

The passage extends the comparison, arguing that defending the nation is as essential as paying taxes and that the state can require service from its citizens when society benefits.

P3: Addressing an Objection – Challenging the Analogy

Possible objections are considered: some say taxation and service aren't the same because conscription isn't necessary and national service can go beyond defense. These objections raise the issue of how far government rights can justifiably go.

Based on the information in the passage, which one of the following would most likely be found objectionable by those who oppose compulsory national service?

the use of tax revenues
Wouldn't Oppose
At first, I would have rejected this answer, thinking "We don't have any idea what opinions the opponents of compulsory service have when it comes to tax revenue!" But then I would glance at all five answers and see that this rationale won't cut it, since they're all talking about tax revenues. So we'll have to apply what we know about compulsory national service to tax revenues: it's at odds with liberal principles and we should only do it to defend the nation. This answer is talking about "preventing theft of secrets by foreign agents", so this falls in to the category of "defending the nation". They don't oppose mandatory service to defend the nation as much as they oppose it for other reasons.
7% picked this
Correct
the use of tax revenues
Why this is right
We're trying to apply what we know about how these opponents feel about compulsory national service to tax revenues: it's at odds with liberal principles and we should only do it to defend the nation. So they would probably strongly oppose the "government overreach" of forcing its citizens to contribute to the well-being of people in other nations. They were tolerating mandatory service if we needed it to prevent Hitler from marching in, but not to do proactive goodwill stuff.
Skill tested: Non-Author Opinion · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.
64% picked this
the use of tax revenues
Wouldn't Oppose
We're trying to apply what we know about how these opponents feel about compulsory national service to tax revenues: it's at odds with liberal principles and we should only do it to defend the nation. Since this answer is talking about "maintaining the army", it relates to defending the nation, so these opponents are more likely to tolerate it.
20% picked this
the use of tax revenues
Less Opposed
In the 5th sentence of the last paragraph the author asks, "Can the opponent of national service truly claim that activities of the military such as quelling civil disorders, rebuilding dams and bridges, or assisting the victims of natural disasters, do not provide a similar benefit to the nation?" These are our author's words, but she is making it sound like an opponent of national service, who still makes allowances for tax money being rightly spent on some things that aren't strictly necessary for survival, would be forced to agree with this sentiment. Compared to the correct answer, spending tax money on bridges and dams at least provides a domestic benefit. That seems less objectionable than spending tax money on some other nation's benefit.
6% picked this
the use of tax revenues
Less Opposed
We're told in the 4th sentence of the last paragraph that "Even the most conservative politicians admit that tax money is rightly spent on programs that, while not necessary for the survival of the state, are nevertheless of great benefit to society". Since this answer is talking about helping citizens who are displaced by natural disasters, this would be of benefit to society, and thus these opponents would think it's okay to spend tax money on this stuff. Again, compared to the correct answer (where we spend tax money on foreign nations), at least this action provides a domestic benefit.
3% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill

LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free