Preventing Harm

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong: any is equally acceptable13% picked this

   In all situations in which compulsory rules are needed for the coordination of human activities, any uniformly enforced rule is

   The author has said, in the middle of the 2nd paragraph, that Any fair rule, then, would be better than no rule at all. But this answer is making it seem like the passage said Any fair rule is good as any other fair rule. Our author has never made the extreme claim that all coordinating rules that are uniformly enforced are equally valid / desirable / preferable.

   13%
2. B

   Too Strong1% picked this

   No private organizational rules designed to coordinate the activities of members have as complex a relation to the goal of preventing harm

   Too Strong: none of them Unknown Comparison Can we find anywhere to support the extreme claim that "some criminal statutes" hold the record for being #1 in terms of complex relation to the goal of preventing harm? No. It's possible that the coordinating rule that's tops for complexity is a private organization rule (or at least that a private organizational rule is tied with some criminal statue for being the most complex appeal to the goal of preventing harm). This answer is just taking words from the passage (so that it will sounds familiar) and then making an extreme comparison (so that it's a wrong answer).

   1%
3. C

   Correct62% picked this

   Every fair rule that could be effectively used to prescribe which side of the road to drive on is a rule whose implementation would

   Why this is right

   Every fair rule? That sounds extreme. Do we ever talk about every fair rule? Well, yes! We should research our qualms if we're unsure of whether the passage provides any line this strong. If we Ctrl+F "fair rule", we'll find in the 4th sentence of the 2nd paragraph: Any fair rule, then would be better than no rule at all The strength of "any" matches "every". Is this part of the passage saying that if we implement any fair rule, it would likely cause less harm than it would prevent? Sure, that's what the author means, in context, by "better than no rule at all". Any fair rule that coordinates what side of the road we all drive on would be an improvement over having no rule. How is this answer different from (A), which was wrong because it was saying all rules are equally as good as each other? This answer is somewhat more moderately worded, since it's just saying, "If we implemented this rule, it would likely be a net positive". LSAC definitely meant us to hear this as, "Compared to having no rule, if we implemented this rule it would be a net positive when it comes to harm." We might object, "What if there already is a fair rule in place, and this new fair rule we implement is worse than the previous fair rule we had? Couldn't it then be a net loss when it comes to harm?" I don't have a great answer to that objection, other than to resort to "This is the best available answer" and to the idea that "this answer does not sound in any way like it's comparing one fair rule to another fair rule. We would have to take it there. It sounds like it's evaluating the effect of the rule itself, which has to be interpreted in the context of Having this rule vs. Not-Having this (or any) rule."

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

   62%
4. D

   Too Strong: little need19% picked this

   There would be little need for formal regulation and enforcement of conventional driving patterns if all drivers understood and accepted the rationale

   This is a really confusing answer to process. It's saying, "If we all understood and accepted the rationale behind Law X, then we wouldn't need to write or enforce Law X." I think we all understand and accept the rationale behind the law that prohibits murder, but we still want that law on the books and enforced! In the 2nd paragraph, where we're talking about driving, there is no discussion of the causal impact of people understanding the rationale behind a coordination rule that regulates the convention about which side of the road to drive on. We hear that "it's in everyone's interest to have a convention", and we hear that "If we would be assured that others would agree to this convention, then we would voluntarily agree to be subject to this convention and have it backed by criminal sanctions". So if anything, the 2nd paragraph is sounding like the opposite of this. Because we appreciate the need for a coordinating rule regarding what side of the road to drive on, we are volunteering to be governed by such a coordinating rule, one that is enforced with criminal sanctions. The 3rd paragraph speaks more to understanding the logic behind a rule, but once again, the people agreeing there should be a rule banning steroids among competitors still want there to be enforcement of that rule. Otherwise, they'd worry that other people are "cheating" the unwritten / unenforced rule.

   19%
5. E

   Opposite5% picked this

   Unlike rules forbidding such acts as burglary and assault, those that are designed primarily to prevent the inconvenience and chaos of uncoordinated

   In the middle of the 2nd paragraph, this passage is arguing that it is legitimate for a legislature to impose such a rule (backed by criminal sanctions) The mention of burglary and assault comes at the end of the 2nd paragraph. The author is saying, "just like laws against burglary and assault, which are legitimate because they attempt to prevent harm, laws enforcing coordinating rules are also legitimate because the lack of a coordinating rule would lead to harm."

   5%