Reading Comprehension

PT119 · S1 · P4 · Q24 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.

24.

It can be most reasonably inferred from the passage that the author would agree with which one of the following statements?

  1. In all situations in which

    Too Strong: any is equally acceptable

    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% picked this

  2. No private organizational rules designed

    Too Strong

    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% picked this

  3. Correct

    Every fair rule that could

    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.

    63% picked this

  4. There would be little need

    Too Strong: little need

    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% picked this

  5. Unlike rules forbidding such acts

    Opposite

    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."

    4% 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