Rectification of Past Property Injustice

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

TopicsMethodLaw

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

Free to start

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

There are two principles that are fundamental to a theory of justice regarding property. The principle of justice in acquisition specifies the conditions under which someone can legitimately come to own something that was previously not owned by anyone. The principle of justice in of property from one person to another is justified.

Given such principles, if the world were wholly just, the following definition would exhaustively cover the regarding property:

1. A person who acquires property in accordance with the principle of justice in acquisition that property.

2. A person who acquires property in accordance with the principle of justice in transfer, from someone else who is entitled entitled to the property.

3. No one is entitled to any property except by (repeated) applications and 2.

However, not all actual situations are generated in accordance with the principles of justice in acquisition and justice in transfer. Some people steal from others or defraud them, for example. The existence of past injustice raises the issue of the rectification of injustice. If past injustice has shaped present ownership in various should have resulted. Actual ownership of property must then be brought into conformity with this description.

Passage

In 1790, the United States Congress passed the Indian Nonintercourse Act, which requires that all transfers of lands from Native Americans to others be approved by the federal government. The law has not been changed in any relevant respect, and it remains in effect today. Its purpose is clear. It was meant tribes for recovery of lands held by them when the Nonintercourse Act took effect.

One natural (one might almost say obvious) way of reasoning about Native American claims to land in North America is this: Native Americans were the first human occupants of this land. Before the European invasion of North America, the land belonged to them. In the course of that invasion and its aftermath, easily be righted by returning the land to them—or by returning it wherever that is feasible.

What this question is testing

Method

Your task

Describe how the argument proceeds — the technique it uses to reach its conclusion.

Common trap

Answers that describe a method the argument doesn't actually use.

Winning move

Track the role each statement plays, then match that to the choice describing the same moves.

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.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the difference in approach taken by passage A as compared

Answer choices

Correct30% picked this
Passage A espouses a general view without providing details, while passage B sketches an argument that it
Why this is right
Did passage A espouse a general view without details? Sure. Everything in there sounded theoretical. It didn't name any places or dates. And even the rectification part was saying "A principle of rectification would say X", like hypothetically. Did passage B sketch an argument it doesn't necessarily endorse? Jeez. Let me check? Yes, I guess the final paragraph is sketching out an argument from its beginning through the sentence that begins with Ideally. The (one might almost say obvious) way of reasoning about Native American claims to land is that .... (ideally), the land should be restored to its rightful owners (the Native Americans). But then the author backpedals and softens a bit: - This may be impractical - Compromises might have to be made - let's give the land back ... where feasible, of course!
Skill tested: Method · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.
30%
No Opinion in A11% picked this
Passage A argues for the superiority of one view over competing views, while passage B considers
We can stop with the first ingredient here, since Passage A was neutral, dry, scholarly, and theoretical. It didn't argue in favor of any view.
11%
Double Mismatch36% picked this
Passage A invokes commonly held principles to support a policy recommendation, while passage B relies on the views of established
Passage A really isn't recommending anything. Or is it? It's really impossible to say for sure. The author poses a rhetorical question ("What, if anything, ought to be done?") and then poses a hypothetical answer. Passage B doesn't rely on the views of any authorities. The closest thing to authorities in Passage B would be the U.S. government or Native American tribes, but those are in the first paragraph, and Passage B doesn't really get into its "return the land" spiel until the second paragraph, at which point it just relies on common sense fairness about property.
36%
Double Mismatch17% picked this
Passage A briefly states a view and then provides an argument for it, while passage B provides a detailed statement of
It's very unclear that Passage A is making an argument for anything. It seems to just clarify Principles of Property and then get into a little hypothetical about Principles of Rectification. We can definitely feel good about eliminating this answer based on the fact that Passage B does seem to have opinion towards the end, so if we're saying one passage is neutral and one is opinionated it should be A, B ... not B, A as this answer implies.
17%
Weak Matches5% picked this
Passage A provides an argument in support of a view, while passage B attempts to
It's very unclear that Passage A provides an argument in support of anything. The final sentence sounds like a recommendation, but it also sounds like the author is just explaining an implication of what a Principle of Rectification would say, were we to want to follow one. Passage B doesn't set out to undermine a view. It sketches out some reasoning that agrees with in spirit but thinks in practice would involve a lot of necessary compromises. But that's more like "qualified support" than "I'm here to undermine this view".
5%

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