Logical Reasoning

PT137 · S3 · Q9 Legal theorist: Governments should not

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning 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

Legal theorist: Governments should not be allowed to use the personal diaries of an individual who is the subject of a criminal prosecution as evidence against that individual.

Conclusion

Governments should not be allowed to use the personal diaries of someone as evidence against themselves in a criminal prosecution.

Evidence

A diary is a silent conversation with oneself, equivalent to speaking to yourself or keeping your thoughts to yourself.

Evaluate

By analogy, it sounds like author is assuming that .

She's saying, whether it's a diary, muttering to oneself, or just saying your thoughts "out loud" in the privacy of your mental theater, it's all the same --- these are your thoughts, a private conversation between you and you.

She apparently thinks this type of conversation is inadmissible.

Goal

Since our focus on Strengthen + Principle questions is the Conclusion, we want to remind ourselves what kind of idea we're trying to prove. We're hoping to support that .

So whatever principle we pick to support this claim should sound like a principle about what governments should / shouldn't be allowed to use as evidence in a trial.

9.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, provides the most support for the legal theorist's argument?

  1. Governments should not be allowed

    Unrelated to Goal

    This isn't a principle about whether or not a certain type of evidence should be admissible in a trial. This is about the evidence gathering phase: whether or not the government should be allowed to force entities to give them certain forms of evidence.

    0% picked this

  2. When crime is a serious

    Opposite Conclusion Match

    Ultimately, this principle is about which types of evidence should be admissible, but it's saying very weakly that some restrictions should be relaxed. We are trying to support a conclusion that is saying, "Don't relax this restriction. It should remain inadmissible for governments to use personal diaries as evidence."

    0% picked this

  3. Correct

    Governments should not be allowed

    Why this is right

    This is appealingly a rule about whether a certain type of evidence (an individual's remarks) should or shouldn't be allowed in criminal prosecution. "Unless" = "if it is not the case that ... " The remarks were govt's should not be not intended for ? allowed to use an other people individual's remarks to criminally prosecute that person The author is trying to prove that "personal diaries" should not be allowed to be used against an individual in their criminal prosecution. Are personal diaries "remarks that were not intended for other people"? Yes, they are. The author establishes that a personal diary is equivalent to a conversation with oneself, speaking to oneself, writing one's thoughts down, or thinking silently. In all cases, those remarks are not intended for anyone but the person thinking them. Since this rule applies to personal diaries, it outputs the conclusion that "governments should not be allowed to use personal diaries to criminally prosecute that individual".

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

    77% picked this

  4. Governments should not have the

    Weak Conclusion Match

    This rule is mostly about whether the government should have the power to confiscate. We wanted a rule about whether or not a certain type of evidence should be admissible in court. If we accept the (strained) idea that a personal diary qualifies as personal correspondence ("Dear Myself, Today was quite a Tuesday ..."), then this answer would tell us that the government doesn't have the power to confiscate Al Capone's diary in order to use it during the trial of Al Capone. But ... if someone gives the diary to the government (Al Capone's neglected daughter, for example), this rule wouldn't stop the government from using that diary in Capone's trial. Since it's not a rule about whether personal diaries are admissible (just a rule about whether or not governments are allowed to confiscate certain items), it doesn't do nearly as good a job at supporting the conclusion as our correct answer does.

    22% picked this

  5. Governments should do everything in

    Opposite

    This doesn't sound like a principle that limits what the government is allowed to use in a criminal trial. It actually sounds like a carte blanche for the government to go after criminals by all means necessary.

    0% 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