Reading Comprehension

PT119 · S1 · P4 · Q25 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.

25.

The author distinguishes between two examples of coordinating rules on the basis of whether or not such rules

  1. Correct

    prevent some harm beyond that

    Why this is right

    Answer A is correct.

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

    77% picked this

  2. are intended to ensure conformity

    Trap

    5% picked this

  3. are voluntarily agreed upon by

    Trap

    9% picked this

  4. could be considered justifiable by

    Trap

    5% picked this

  5. apply less directly to the

    Trap

    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