Reading Comprehension

PT109 · S2 · P4 · Q25 Jeremy Bentham

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

By the time Bentham turned his interest to the subject, late in the eighteenth century, most components of modern evidence law had been assembled.

Topic

The evolution of evidence law, particularly Jeremy Bentham's influence on it.

Framework

Old / New

Main Point

Jeremy Bentham proposed a radical shift in evidence law, pushing for broader admissibility of evidence, and although some exclusions persist today, his ideas laid the foundation for modern evidence law. ()

P1: Historical Context of Evidence Law

Back in late 18th and 19th century, evidence law had some strange rules by today's standards, such as forbidding parties from testifying in their own cases.

P2: Nature of Evidence Exclusions

Evidence exclusions were commonplace, often for rational reasons like hearsay being unreliable, but sometimes exclusions occurred even when they should have been included.

P3: Push for Reform

Efforts to reform the complex and tradition-bound evidence law were often blocked, but Bentham proposed admitting all evidence that relates to the dispute, with few exceptions.

25.

The author mentions "conversations between social workers and their clients" (last sentence of the fourth paragraph) most probably in order to

  1. Correct

    suggest a situation in which

    Why this is right

    The whole moral to this paragraph was outlining cases in which the nonexclusion principle may be questionable --- i.e. this whole 4th paragraph was discussing situations in which we might want to still exclude a category of evidence. The local Bigger Claim right before this line was "Further, in granting exclusions [to the nonexclusion principle], Bentham conceded sacramental confessions may be a questionable case of applying his 'make everything admissible' rule." And the author then brings up conversations with social workers as another questionable case.

    Skill tested: Local Purpose · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

    66% picked this

  2. cite an example of objections

    Out of Scope

    Out of Scope: objections to his reform This last sentence of the 4th paragraph is the author's voice, not an example of an objection in the late 1700's (not even sure they had social workers at that point). The final paragraph does begin with "Despite concerns such as these", referring back to all the questionable types of evidence mentioned in the 4th paragraph. But at the end of the 4th paragraph, the author isn't presenting someone else's objection. She's airing her own hesitations -- why stop with sacramental confessions? Aren't some other categories worthy of protection? This answer would be fine if it were phrased like "cite an example of the type of objection that could be raised to B's proposed reform". But this answer choice's usage of the past tense implies too specifically that the author was actually quoting some of the stuff Bentham heard when he first advanced his idea.

    11% picked this

  3. illustrate the conflict between competing

    Wrong Purpose

    This one feels really close to being fine. I would be okay picking it if the correct answer didn't seem to better reflect the purpose of that final sentence of the 4th paragraph. The author has already illustrated the potential conflict between competing social interests in the previous sentence, when she talks about Bentham's admission that sacramental confessions should possibly be excluded because a competing social interest would trump our desire for that evidence. So bringing up the social workers in the final sentence of the 4th isn't as much about reiterating the same function as the previous sentence. It's more about, "Where do we draw the line? It seems like we could find other stuff that also is a murky decision?"

    16% picked this

  4. demonstrate the difference between social

    Too Strong

    Too Strong: demonstrate Wrong Purpose: interests vs. values The author is never trying to distinguish social interests from social values. They are more or less presented as synonyms for each other. Be careful with verbs like "to demonstrate / to prove". They're usually wrong and too strong. Authors are more likely to "suggest / illustrate / raise a consideration".

    1% picked this

  5. emphasize that Bentham’s exceptions to

    Opposite

    This answer implies that Bentham's exceptions also covered conversations between social workers and their clients, but this last sentence is actually suggesting the opposite -- why would Bentham carve out an exception for sacramental confessions but not for social worker conversations?

    7% 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