Reading Comprehension

PT141 · S1 · P4 · Q24 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.

24.

Which one of the following is true of the relationship between passage A and the second paragraph of passage B?

  1. The second paragraph of passage

    Not Theoretical

    The second paragraph of B isn't lost in theoretical abstractions. It's trying to practically apply a principle like the principle of rectification to a specific, concrete situation involve Native Americans. So we can't say that B is "developing a broader version of a theory". No theory is cited in B.

    7% picked this

  2. The second paragraph of passage

    Wrong Relationship: bolster argument

    The relationship is more like "Passage B is applying a weaker version of a principle discussed in Passage A to specific facts." The "argument" of A, if we can call there one is: "If the world were wholly just, you'd only need these three rules to cover property justice. But it isn't, so you need this fourth rule about rectifying injustice." The second paragraph is stating facts that would bolster the argument that Native Americans should get (most of) their back, but it doesn't seem to be bolstering an argument about what abstract principles are / aren't needed to have a complete theory of justice regarding property.

    10% picked this

  3. The argument in the second

    Wrong Relationship: parallel arguments

    The argument in the second paragraph of B is, "Native Americans had rightful claim to this land. It was illegally taken from them. Therefore, it should be given back to them wherever feasibly possible." The "argument" of A was, "If the world were wholly just, you'd only need these three rules to cover property justice. But it isn't. Therefore, you need this fourth rule about rectifying injustice." Those don't seem structurally parallel at all. This answer is making it seem like A and B both make specific arguments with the same abstract argument pattern. But A was talking about abstract principles, and B seems to be using the fourth abstract principles to make a specific argument.

    7% picked this

  4. Correct

    Passage A presents a theory

    Why this is right

    Passage A presents a theory that includes the principle of rectification, for dealing with situations in which property was illicitly attained. It seems to support the argument that Passage B makes in its second paragraph. "If past injustice has shaped present ownership, then we should figure out how property ownership should have looked (without the injustice) and then bring actual ownership of property into conformity with that description". That tends to support B's weaker version of, "Past injustice has shaped the present ownership of most North American lands by Euroamericans who illicitly stole that property. We should give the lands back to the Native Americans wherever possible." (that would bring actual ownership more into conformity with what property ownership would have resulted had the unjust stealing of land not occurred.

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

    72% picked this

  5. The second paragraph of passage

    Opposite

    The second paragraph of B seems to utilize or mostly align with the principle of rectification discussed in passage A.

    5% 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