Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Hard

PT138 S1 P4 Q27 Explanation

Discretionary Nonenforcement

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension question.

TopicsMeaning in ContextLaw

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Passage

Passage A Law enforcement agencies can effectively nullify particular laws, or particular applications of law, simply by declining to prosecute violators. This power appears to be here to explain why.

Rules of law are almost always overinclusive: read literally, they forbid some conduct that the legislature that formulated the rule did not want to forbid. The costs of precisely tailoring a rule to the conduct intended to be forbidden would be prohibitive given the limitations of human foresight and the inherent ambiguities nonenforcement—by which the costs of overinclusion can be reduced without a corresponding increase in underinclusion (loopholes).

Of course, allowing discretionary nonenforcement does not determine the principle by which the law enforcement agency will select its cases. Conceivably the agency could concentrate its resources on those areas of conduct that had been brought inadvertently within the scope of the rule. But this seems unlikely. Capricious enforcement is not unknown stray too far from the intended, as distinct from the enacted, regulation being enforced.

Passage B The newspaper reported that 231,000 water customers in the city are late paying their bills—some by months, others by decades. In all, these water delinquents owe the city more than $625 million in overdue bills and penalties. So officials are planning to selectively cut the water to a few residences who will be in no position to complain since they were caught stiffing the system.

But property owners are responsible for water bills. So why not just do what every other property-related creditor or tax authority does—attach a lien to the property? The money owed would automatically be available whenever a property was sold, and the threat powerful incentive to keep current with one’s water obligations.

Well, here’s an answer: a loophole prohibits debts other than taxes from being subject to liens by the city, and, technically, water charges are not taxes. But if the problem is with the law, then why not change politically smarter, than shutting off people’s water?

What this question is testing

Meaning in Context

Your task

Pin down exactly what the question asks about the passage — a detail, the author's view, the structure, or the main point — before looking at the choices.

Common trap

Answers that restate a true detail from the passage but don't answer the specific question being asked.

Winning move

Anticipate the answer in your own words from the passage, then find the choice that matches that prediction.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
27.

Passage A suggests that an instance of “capricious enforcement” (third paragraph) most

Answer choices

  1. Unrelated to Goal5% picked this

    enforcing the law only to the degree that municipal resources

    We're looking for "enforcing the law against violators who are inadvertently brought within the scope of the rule, not the violators intended to be targeted by the rule". This is talking about being restrained by municipal resources, because the word "resources" was in the previous sentence (Word-Bait).

  2. Opposite13% picked this

    enforcing the law according to the legislature's intent in passing

    We're looking for "enforcing the law against violators who are inadvertently brought within the scope of the rule, not the violators intended to be targeted by the rule". This would be the opposite. It's talking about enforcing against the intended violators, not the accidental-violators.

  3. Unrelated to Goal10% picked this

    prioritizing enforcement of the law according to the amount of damage caused

    We're looking for "enforcing the law against violators who are inadvertently brought within the scope of the rule, not the violators intended to be targeted by the rule". This is talking about prosecuting based on damage caused.

  4. Weak Match8% picked this

    not understanding the difference between the letter of the law and the intent

    We're looking for "enforcing the law against violators who are inadvertently brought within the scope of the rule, not the violators intended to be targeted by the rule". This is talking about enforcing the law against both of them because you don't actually understand the difference between violators intended to be prosecuted and people who are technically violating the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law. In the 3rd paragraph, they aren't referring to an agency who can't figure out the difference between a correct violator and an accidental violator. They're talking about an agency actually concentrating intentionally on the people who are "inadvertently" described by the law. You'd have to understand which people are intended to be covered by the law vs. which people are inadvertently covered by the law in order to concentrate on the latter.

  5. Correct64% picked this

    not following the intent of the legislature in enforcing

    Why this is right

    We're looking for "enforcing the law against violators who are inadvertently brought within the scope of the rule, not the violators intended to be targeted by the rule". Some violators of a rule are intentionally within the scope of the rule (the rule was written to address them). Other violators are only inadvertently within the scope of the rule. Prosecutors are supposed to be using their discretion, recognizing that these violators were not really the intended target when the legislature composed this law, and therefore not prosecuting them. Capricious enforcement is doing the opposite. It's targeting people who weren't meant to be targeted by the law.

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

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