Reading Comprehension

PT119 · S1 · P4 · Q27 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.

27.

In the final sentence of the passage, the author uses the expression "somewhat complex" primarily to describe reasoning that

  1. involves two layers of law,

    Out of Scope

    Out of Scope: two layers Unrelated to Goal The passage never talks about different legal layers for private vs. public. And this doesn't sound like our prediction, "convoluted / indirect / roundabout / circuitous / initially counterintuitive" reasoning.

    1% picked this

  2. requires that those affected by

    Too Strong: requires Unrelated to Goal

    This doesn't sound like our prediction, "convoluted / indirect / roundabout / circuitous / initially counterintuitive" reasoning. This is talking about transparent, open, candid reasoning.

    23% picked this

  3. Correct

    involves a case in which

    Why this is right

    The author's thesis is that a lot of laws that seem like they're not aimed at preventing harm to others (e.g. drive on the right side! don't take steroids!) ultimately are about preventing harm to others, you just have to think through a slightly longer causal chain to get there. Yes, driving on the left isn't inherently dangerous in and of itself, so forbidding it doesn't seem like it's preventing harm to others. But if we didn't have some arbitrary coordinating rule, then it would be inherently dangerous. So, indirectly, because it's superior to not having any coordinating rule at all, saying "Thou shalt drive on right side" actually is aimed at preventing harm to others. Similarly, banning steroids does have one effect which is preventing harm to the culprit, not to others. But ... if we widen the lens, Johnny Steroids isn't just hurting Johnny. He's raising the bar of what a human body can do, so his competition is pressured into hurting themselves by also taking steroids. Both of these laws appeal to the goal of preventing harm, but it's a complex appeal because our surface impression is that we're merely mandating conformity or merely protecting people from themselves.

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

    60% picked this

  4. can convince athletes that their

    Out of Scope

    Out of Scope: convince athletes Unrelated to Goal This final sentence is about convincing legal theorists that we really are holding to their standard of "rules must have goal of preventing harm to others". It has nothing to do with convincing athletes of anything. This doesn't sound like our prediction, "convoluted / indirect / roundabout / circuitous / initially counterintuitive" reasoning.

    3% picked this

  5. illustrates how appeals to the

    Broken Ending

    This answer would be totally usable up until the final ingredient. The "somewhat complex appeal" refers to reasoning that illustrates how the need for coordination can justify many rules that do not at first seem related to the goal of preventing harm.

    13% 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