Reading Comprehension

PT119 · S1 · P4 · Q26 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.

26.

Which one of the following is a rule that primarily addresses a problem of coordination most similar to that discussed in the second paragraph?

  1. a rule requiring that those

    Bad Match: harmful action

    If there weren't a rule that said diggers of ancient artifacts needed to get authorities' permission and land owners' permission before proceeding with the dig, would chaos result? Not really. There would potentially be trespassing on someone else's land. If you dig up someone else's land, you're causing them harm because you're damaging their property. So a law saying you need permission from a land owner before digging up their land is more like the conventional type of rule where the outlawed behavior would cause harm to others. We might tell ourselves a story about a chaotic scene in which lots of diggers show up to the same site at the same time (because there was no coordinating rule making them get a permit from the authorities first), but the idea of a "traffic accident" with archaeological diggers is a stretch.

    4% picked this

  2. a rule requiring that pharmacists

    Bad Match: harmful action

    If this rule didn't exist, then pharmacists could sell medicine to customers based on customer request. That could potentially lead to customers being harmed, if they requested medications that would harmful to them. So this rule seems to still be grounded in a pretty direct sense of potential harm to others. Pharmacists are forbidden from giving customers any mediation requested because such an action could directly lead to harming others.

    7% picked this

  3. a rule requiring that advertisers

    Bad Match: harmful action

    Again, this rule seems to prevent an action that could potentially be harmful to others. It prevents advertisers from making up anything they want. Saying something untrue in an advertisement seems inherently bad, whereas we're trying to match up with a situation where driving on the left side of the road does not seem inherently bad.

    3% picked this

  4. a rule requiring that employees

    Weak Match: harmless action

    This answer definitely provides us with a literal coordination rule (the employees are coordinating their outfits). But there doesn't seem to be any inherent danger in not having a rule. If we don't have a coordinating rule for which side of the road to drive on, then car accidents could be more likely. But if we don't have a coordinating rule for what employees wear to work, do we really have any bigger threat of harm?

    13% picked this

  5. Correct

    a rule requiring different aircraft

    Why this is right

    This has the most similarity to the driving situation. If we didn't draw lanes on the road and tell drivers which side they have to drive on, then cars could go anywhere and crashes would be much more frequent. Similarly, if we don't establish "lanes" in the sky and tell pilots which altitude they have to fly at, then planes could go anywhere and crashes would be more frequent. There's nothing inherently dangerous about a private plane flying at 30,000 ft., but there is something dangerous about not having any rule to coordinate the flow of air travel.

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

    73% 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