Reading Comprehension

PT137 · S1 · P4 · Q24 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

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.

24.

According to the passage, which one of the following was a consequence of the absence of limitations on the legal power of English and French monarchs in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries?

Correct
It was difficult for those
Why this is right
We're looking for "monarchs refused to pay back loans" or "monarchs had to borrow at higher interest rates". This is, cruelly, our best available answer. It is code language for "monarchs had to borrow at higher interest rates". When businesses, or monarchs, want to expand operations, they need resources. Businesses and monarchs would borrow money from a bank to finance that expansion. It's easier to get loans when you're a desirable borrower. When you're considered a higher-risk borrower, it's harder to get loans and you receive worse terms on those loans. This answer is pulling in some of the other ideas we talked about in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs, in order to express the idea of "monarchs got crappier interest rates on their loans" in terms of code language. The 2nd paragraph told us that the absence of legal limitations on monarchs led to a practical challenge. What was that practical challenge? They were "struggling to expand their empires .. and required vast amounts of capital" (start of 4th paragraph). Meanwhile, (end of 3rd paragraph), creditors will not readily lend lots of capital at favorable terms (low interest rates) to an absolute monarch who can renege upon debts at will (because of an absence of limitations on their legal power).
Skill tested: Locate Detail · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.
53% picked this
Those monarchs enacted new laws
Out of Scope: new laws
We're looking for "monarchs refused to pay back loans" or "monarchs had to borrow at higher interest rates". Neither one of those has anything to do with "enacting new laws".
3% picked this
It became increasingly easy for
Unsupported Comparison
We're looking for "monarchs refused to pay back loans" or "monarchs had to borrow at higher interest rates". We'd love to hear "it became increasingly harder for monarchs in England and France to borrow money at lower interest rates". This answer is saying that it got easier for regular rich people. We know that regular rich people were more trusted by lenders and offered lower interest rates than were monarchs. But rich people's interest rates were lower not because their borrowing terms improved, but because monarch's borrowing terms got worse. Perhaps both rich people and monarchs were paying 3% interest rates on loans. But then monarchs earned a reputation for reneging on debts. And not surprisingly, creditors took that behavior into account and demanded higher interest rates from monarchs ("It used to be 3%? Well, not it's gonna be 10%?") It hasn't become increasingly easy for wealthy subjects to borrow. They're still at 3%.
6% picked this
Those monarchs borrowed more money
Opposite, if anything
We're looking for "monarchs refused to pay back loans" or "monarchs had to borrow at higher interest rates". We could say "those monarchs paid back less money than they would have if their power had been restricted". We could say "those monarchs paid more interest on the money they borrowed than they would have if their power had been restricted." But we can't say they borrowed more money. In fact, since we know that they had to pay higher interest rates, we have reason to think that monarchs were able to borrow less money than otherwise.
32% picked this
Those monarchs were forced to
Opposite
This is code language for something that happens once the monarchs are subjected to legal limitations. When Parliament receives the power to police the Crown's borrowing and repayments, the monarch becomes forced to demonstrate a willingness to respect property rights. This question asked us for a consequence of an absence of legal limitations. This answer is telling us a consequence of when legal limitations were imposed.
7% 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