Reading Comprehension

PT141 · S1 · P4 · Q22 Rectification of Past Property Injustice

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

Passage A

Topic

Justice in property ownership and how it relates to Native American land claims in the U.S.

Framework

Answer / Explain (Passage A gives us a theory for evaluating property justice, and Passage B applies this framework to a real-world historical issue.)

Main Point

Passage A: A just system of property ownership depends on fair acquisition and transfer, and when past injustices occur, those injustices should be rectified by bringing current ownership into line with what would have happened if justice had always been followed. (Most valuable sentence: End of Passage A.) Passage B: The U.S. has a law (the Indian Nonintercourse Act) meant to protect Native American land, and a strong case can be made that, since Native Americans were wrongfully dispossessed, justice requires restoring land to them whenever possible.

P1 (Passage A): Principles of Justice in Property

This paragraph introduces two rules for justice regarding property: one about how you can initially own something, and one about how you can justly transfer it to someone else.

P2 (Passage A): Ideal Entitlement to Property

If everything was fair, ownership would only ever come from original acquisition or fair transfers—no other way would be legitimate.

P3 (Passage A): The Problem of Past Injustice

But real life isn’t so clean: sometimes property is stolen or taken unjustly. Here the author says we need a principle for rectifying this: by looking at history and figuring out what ownership would look like if no injustice had occurred, we should try to correct things now.

22.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the main purpose for which passage A was written and the main purpose for which passage B was written?

  1. Passage A: to propose a

    Passage B: to criticize a

    Too Strong A

    Too Strong A: propose Out of Scope B: criticize proposal The author of A seems too aloof and academic to say they were actively trying to propose a solution. The closest we get to a moral problem is in the last paragraph of A: If past injustice has shaped present ownership in various ways, what, if anything, ought to be done? That's a hypothetical problem and then the principle of rectification mentioned as a solution seems to be presented at arm's length, not as though it is the author's personal idea for what we should do. We could eliminate it at this point without worrying about B. But the B half of this answer is also broken. The author offers a proposed solution to a moral problem at the end of her passage; she doesn't criticize one. We can't consider the Indian Nonintercourse Act a proposed solution. It's more like an attempted solution, because it's went into effect in 1790.

    5% picked this

  2. Correct

    Passage A: to sketch a

    Passage B: to give a

    Why this is right

    The concept of justice is synonymous with morality, so a theory of justice regarding property is asking, "What is right, what is moral, what is just, when it comes to property?" The author of A does indeed provide a general outline, even with numbered bullet points. The author of B, meanwhile, is not dealing in the theoretical world or enumerating abstract principles. She is analyzing a particular situation that involves potential property injustice with Native Americans. She makes some definite moral judgments: - the land was illicitly taken from them - the current owners lack a well-founded right to the land, which lies illicitly in their hands - ideally, the land should be restored to its rightful owners

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

    58% picked this

  3. Passage A: to spell out

    Passage B: to examine a

    Trap

    Weak Match for A Bad Match for B The easier way to eliminate this one is its description of B. The only case examined was the Nonintercourse Act of 1790, which was far from exemplifying a moral ideal. The author of B would be like, "The moral ideal is not to say, run your land sales by us first so that we can make sure people aren't trying to screw you". The moral ideal is "sorry we stole your land. Here, you can have it back." The description of A is not great, since we ended up hearing about 3 principles (acquisition, transfer, rectification) and it's a stretch to say we got details about any of them. Hearing what the principles are doesn't qualify as details, to me.

    32% picked this

  4. Passage A: to argue for

    Passage B: to question the

    Out of Scope B

    Out of Scope B: moral theory Too Strong A: argue for The author of passage A was more presentational, not prescriptive. He was informing us about principles in a theory a justice regarding property. He only comes close to sounding like he's making an argument in his last two sentences, but those seem to be more like, "Some people would say we should have a principle of rectification", not "I'm saying we should have one". Passage B doesn't discuss any moral theory that I can see. The Indian Nonintercourse Act definitely isn't a moral theory; it's just a piece of legislation. And the "natural (one might almost say obvious) way of reasoning about NA claims" is not a moral theory; it's just common sense. Even if we called that a moral theory, the author of B is endorsing it, not questioning its assumption.

    2% picked this

  5. Passage A: to advance the

    Passage B: to provide a

    Out of Scope B

    Out of Scope B: widely held principles Passage B doesn't mention any "widely held moral principles". The part dealing with A also feels a little strong, in the sense that the author of A was mainly just informing. (A), (D), and (E) all accuse passage A of having a strong personal point of view: - proposing a solution - arguing for a particular ideal - trying to advance certain principles

    3% 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