Reading Comprehension

PT119 · S1 · P4 · Q23 Preventing Harm

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

Many legal theorists have argued that the only morally legitimate goal in imposing criminal penalties against certain behaviors is to prevent people from harming others.

Topic

Why laws that require coordination (not just preventing obvious harms) can still be justified as preventing harm

Framework

Answer / Explain

Main Point

Even though some laws that require people to coordinate their actions (and may not seem to prevent obvious harm) might look like they’re just enforcing conformity or acting for people’s own good, the real justification is that they ultimately help prevent harm that would arise from lack of coordination. The "Most Valuable Sentence": The last lines of paragraphs 1 and 3 together best capture the main point: - P1: - P3:

P1: Introduction—Setting Up the Puzzle

Some legal thinkers believe the only legit reason to make something illegal is to prevent harm to others, not to enforce conformity or protect people from themselves. But actually, preventing harm can also justify punishing certain nonconforming behaviors that don’t seem harmful at first glance.

P2: Explaining Coordination Rules With an Example

Sometimes, society needs everyone to agree to follow a rule simply so things go smoothly, like agreeing to all drive on the same side of the road. Even though the forbidden act (driving on the wrong side) isn’t inherently harmful like assault, a lack of coordination would be. If everyone would agree to a rule that’s enforced by law, it’s legit to impose such a rule because it ultimately prevents harm.

P3: Extending the Idea—Coordination to Avoid Deeper Harms

Some situations need coordination to prevent more than just confusion—like banning steroids in sports. If some athletes use them, everyone else is forced to either risk health or lose their fair shot, so harm happens either way. A universally enforced rule protects everyone, and most people would consent to it if they saw how it works. So, even if it looks like the law is just telling people what’s good for them, it’s really about avoiding bigger harms that result from a lack of fair coordination.

23.

It can be most reasonably inferred from the passage that the author considers which one of the following factors to be generally necessary for the justification of rules compelling coordination of people's activities?

  1. evidence that such rules do

    Out of Scope

    Out of Scope: act for own good Goes Against Common Sense There's nothing in our support sentence that says "people need to be assured that this coordination rule isn't going to force them to act for their own good". On the assumption that all people would voluntarily agree to be subject to a coordination rule backed by criminal sanctions, if people could be assured that others would also agree, it is argued to be legitimate for a legislature to impose such a rule. This answer is also just counterintuitive. If a rule is going to force us to act a certain way, why wouldn't we want it to force us to act for our own good?

    3% picked this

  2. enactment of such rules by

    Out of Scope

    Out of Scope: enacted by legit body Contradicted, if anything There's nothing in our support sentence that says these rules are no justified unless enacted by an elected or appointed government lawmaking organization. On the assumption that all people would voluntarily agree to be subject to a coordination rule backed by criminal sanctions, if people could be assured that others would also agree, it is argued to be legitimate for a legislature to impose such a rule. In fact, the coordination rule in the 3rd paragraph is enacted by a private athletic organization, and the author seems to endorse this rule as justified as well.

    1% picked this

  3. the assurance that criminal penalties

    Out of Scope: penalties ensure compliance

    There's nothing in our support sentence that says "these rules aren't justified unless people are assured that penalties are a means of securing compliance with such rules". The sentence does say that these rules would be backed by criminal sanctions, but it doesn't talk about assuring people about how penalties would be used. On the assumption that all people would voluntarily agree to be subject to a coordination rule backed by criminal sanctions, if people could be assured that others would also agree, it is argued to be legitimate for a legislature to impose such a rule.

    12% picked this

  4. Correct

    some form of consent on

    Why this is right

    This answer talks about the consent of those being coordinated, and we can match that up with our support sentence. On the assumption that all people would voluntarily agree to be subject to a coordination rule backed by criminal sanctions, if people could be assured that others would also agree, it is argued to be legitimate for a legislature to impose such a rule. The part about 'rational' people might seem out of place, but it's a reasonable term to use. Most people are considered rational. It's mainly very young children or mentally imbalanced people whom we might consider irrational people. You can't sign your will unless you're of sound mind and body. It seems like they're using 'rational' in the same sense of, "People capable of understanding the logic behind this coordination rule would agree to it".

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

    72% picked this

  5. a sense of community and

    Out of Scope: community / uniformity

    There's nothing in our support sentence that says a coordination rule isn't justified unless it provides a sense of community or cultural uniformity among those subject to it. A coordination rule is seeking behavioral uniformity, but not cultural uniformity. Do you feel a bond, a sense of community, a sense of cultural uniformity with all the other drivers who drive on the right side of the road? Probably not.

    12% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

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

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