Reading Comprehension

PT137 · S1 · P4 · Q23 Sovereign Omnipotence

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

Start practicing free

Can a sovereign have unlimited legal power?

Topic

Can sovereigns (like monarchs or parliaments) truly have unlimited legal power, and what are the consequences of such power?

Framework

Answer / Explain

Main Point

The passage discusses the paradox of sovereign omnipotence—if a sovereign has unlimited power, it can limit itself, contradicting true omnipotence—and explores how this paradox has practical consequences, such as making it hard for monarchs to make credible commitments (like repaying debts). While constitutional limits (like those after England’s Glorious Revolution) can help, they don’t eliminate the paradox; they just shift it elsewhere in government. The Most Valuable Sentence: Final paragraph:

P1: Introducing the Paradox of Omnipotence

Can a sovereign really have unlimited power? If so, it should be able to limit itself, which creates a contradiction. This is the paradox of omnipotence.

P2: Real-World Problems from Sovereign Omnipotence

This isn’t just a philosophical riddle—it caused real problems for monarchies like those in England and France, who faced big challenges because of it.

P3: Credibility Problems for Sovereigns

Sovereigns with unlimited power can break promises whenever they want—especially financial ones—so no one trusts them, and it’s tough for them to borrow money cheaply or easily.

23.

Which one of the following principles underlies the author's argument in the last paragraph of the passage?

  1. The adequacy of a solution

    Reversed Terms

    The author's "conclusion" is definitely about the adequacy of a solution to a political problem, because she's saying that the constitutional settlement "did not solve the paradox of omnipotence", which is a political science problem. In practical terms, it did solve a problem. Whereas the Crown was getting charged terrible interest rates on loans, that went away once Parliament was established. It did not solve the theoretical issue. Whereas the Crown previously had sovereignty and lacked the power to bind its own power, now Parliament had the exact same situation. The author would say we should judge whether the problem of sovereign omnipotence was "solved" based on these theoretical considerations. Since they didn't change, the problem wasn't solved.

    17% picked this

  2. Correct

    A genuine solution to a

    Why this is right

    The effects of the problem of unlimited sovereign power were the prohibitively high interest rates that creditors were charging to loan money to the British government. Once Parliament was established as a check on the Crown's power, the borrowing rates were lowered. So the establishment of Parliament did eliminate the effects of the problem of unlimited sovereign power. But, since it just relocated unlimited power from the Crown to Parliament, it didn't solve the fundamental cause, which is that a sovereign entity lacks the power to bind its own power.

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

    68% picked this

  3. A problem inherent in a

    Bad Trigger Match

    This answer would give us a rule saying, If you don't completely then you haven't abandon a form of govt. ? solved a problem inherent in that form That doesn't seem to match the conversation. The author never says in the final paragraph that since Britain didn't completely abandon the monarchy, it failed to solve a problem inherent in monarchies.

    2% picked this

  4. In terms of practical consequences,

    Bad Conclusion Match

    This principle helps to adjudicate which form of unlimited legal power is preferable. The author doesn't opine on whether having an omnipotent Parliament is an improvement over having an omnipotent monarch. The author's main sentiment is that the creation of Parliament didn't solve the problem of sovereign omnipotence. The author provides a supporting reason for that view. The author would probably agree that in practical terms, having unlimited power with Parliament worked out better for England in terms of its lower borrowing rates, but that discussion doesn't take place in the final paragraph, which is what this question stem is asking us about.

    4% picked this

  5. A country's constitution should explicitly

    Out of Scope

    Out of Scope: specify each branch's powers Nothing in the last paragraph is saying, "This constitution is bad because it failed to explicitly specify the powers of each branch of government." The last paragraph is just saying, "This constitution did not solve the paradox of omnipotence, because it just relocates unlimited power from one place to another."

    8% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
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