PrepTest 108, Section 3, Question 23
Commentator: A political constitution that provides the framework(74 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(12 more words not shown)
- AIf the people(27 more words not shown)
- BPolitical instability will(23 more words not shown)
- CPolitical instability will(26 more words not shown)
- DA written constitution(19 more words not shown)
- EThe perceived lack(36 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Old words have to be applied to new situations. Think of a constitution written before the internet: someone still has to decide how its principles apply to online communication. I can follow why interpretation is needed.
The commentator makes a more controversial claim about what happens next. Interpreters express their own beliefs but present the result as the original authors' intentions. According to the commentator, people need that presentation to see their laws as an inheritance from a long tradition, rather than the preferences of today's politicians.
Do people really need that belief for political stability? We might question it. But this question asks what is supported if the commentator's statements are true. So accept that claimed requirement and follow it. If the belief in continuity with the constitution's authors disappears, we lose something the commentator says political stability needs.
What we’re looking for
That's the connection I'd look for. Keep it about people's belief in how the constitution is interpreted. We don't need to establish whether any particular interpretation really matches its authors' intentions, or whether every modern politician personally agrees with them.
Working the answers
- A
Which people's intentions? The passage emphasizes the constitution's authors, not current political leaders. In fact, it contrasts inherited tradition with the preferences of contemporary politicians. A changes the source of authority people are supposed to believe in, so it doesn't preserve the commentator's claim.
- BCorrect
People stop believing that interpretations are consistent with the constitution's authors' intentions. That removes the presentation the commentator calls vital to the sense of a long legal tradition. Since the commentator says that sense is necessary for stability, losing it gives us reason to expect more instability.
We can identify that consequence without endorsing the commentator's political theory. The task is to follow the stated connection between the belief and stability.
- C
Disagreeing with the original authors isn't the same as interpreting the constitution inconsistently with their intentions. People might believe a politician dislikes an old principle but still applies it faithfully. The passage concerns the perceived source of the laws, not whether today's leaders privately share all the authors' beliefs.
- D
Having a written constitution doesn't by itself preserve the illusion. The commentator says interpretations must be presented as expressing the authors' intentions. A nation could have the document while its people believed modern interpretations simply reflected current politicians' preferences. D assigns the work to the document alone and leaves out the presentation the argument calls vital.
- E
This adds a story about how the dependence arises: people perceive no long legal tradition, and that lack makes stability depend on a fiction. The commentator doesn't establish that story. The fiction is supposed to sustain belief in a long tradition. E also shifts from interpretations reflecting the authors' intentions to political leaders personally sharing those intentions. Neither change is supported.
More Must Be True questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Must Be True questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.