PT152 S1 Q9 ExplanationLegal doctrine: The government cannot

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   Out of Scope1% picked this

   A government should not implement a regulation on lakeside property that it would not implement on

   Out of Scope: other types of property The normative language of "a government should not" is instantly off-putting. We're looking for connective tissue between "appropriating private property" and "forbidding construction on private property". This answer isn't talking about anything in that orbit.

   1%
2. B

   Out of Scope: wilderness2% picked this

   Governments must balance the rights of private property holders with the rights of those who

   We have no idea whether any area around Lake Crowell is considered a "wilderness" environment, so we don't know if this principle even applies to the Lake Crowell situation. We're looking for connective tissue between "appropriating private property" and "forbidding construction on private property / diminishing the market value of private property". This answer isn't talking about anything like that.

   2%
3. C

   Correct95% picked this

   Regulations that significantly diminish the economic value of a piece of property constitute an appropriation

   Why this is right

   We were looking for connective tissue between "appropriating private property" and "forbidding construction on private property / diminishing the market value of private property". This answer gives us that. It says that "if a regulation would diminish the economic value of a piece of property, then that qualifies as appropriation of private property". So if a regulation denying the development of lakefront lots would diminish the value of those lots, then the government is appropriating those lots. Hence, it should offer fair compensation to the owners.

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

   95%
4. D

   Weakens1% picked this

   Owners of private property are alone responsible for the economic risks associated with government regulations that affect the

   The application is arguing that the government should owe these private property owners some compensation, given that the no-building regulation on the lakefront properties will have a negative economic effect on their properties. This answer, meanwhile, is saying, "Nah. The property owners shoulder all the risk. (The government don't owe them nothin'.)"

   1%
5. E

   Out of Scope: compelling public interest1% picked this

   A government can appropriate private property only if it is in response to a

   We're not hoping to find new ideas in Principle answers. We're trying to link stuff together. The concept of "compelling public interest" was never discussed in the stimulus, so we don't want an answer to be talking about it. This principle would allow someone to prove that a government can't appropriate private property in a certain circumstance. Is that what the Application is trying to prove? No, the Application is trying to prove that when the government messes with people's property, they should give them fair compensation.

   1%