PrepTest 109, Section 4, Question 17
Council member: The preservation of individual property rights(37 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(12 more words not shown)
- AProperty owners are(7 more words not shown)
- BIt is in(20 more words not shown)
- CThe city council(10 more words not shown)
- DAn individual's property(12 more words not shown)
- EZoning laws ensure(7 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
How can the council care so much about property rights while barely letting people change their property? Cutting the grass and pulling weeds are allowed, but remodeling is prohibited. At first, the rules seem to work against the council's stated priority.
We're asked to resolve that apparent conflict. One possibility is that changes to my property could affect yours. Suppose I plant a huge tree whose branches spread over your property. Protecting my freedom to plant whatever I like might interfere with your use of your own land. Rules that restrict one owner could be intended to protect another.
What we’re looking for
Another possibility is that the council inherited these rules and lacks the power to change them. Caring about a goal doesn't necessarily mean being able to achieve it. Those are possible explanations, not facts we've been given. We need an answer that supplies a reason the restrictions and the council's concern could coexist.
Working the answers
- A
Occasional exceptions leave the main puzzle in place. Why have such broad restrictions in the first place if protecting property rights is so important? Allowing some owners to obtain exemptions doesn't explain how the restrictive policy serves that priority.
- B
Lower taxes might benefit owners, but a benefit isn't automatically the preservation of a right. The puzzle concerns the council's strong commitment to property rights. B gives a possible financial advantage of the laws without explaining why that advantage reconciles their restrictions with the stated commitment.
- C
Owners could care even more than the council does. That comparison doesn't change the fact that the council itself supposedly gives property rights the utmost importance. We still need to explain why a council with that priority maintains these restrictions.
- DCorrect
This gives the connection in our first possible explanation: what one person does on their own property can interfere with someone else's property rights. The restrictions could therefore protect owners against harmful changes made by their neighbors.
The council's commitment needn't mean unlimited freedom for each individual owner. When owners' rights can conflict, protecting those rights may involve restrictions. D makes the council's position understandable; we don't have to agree that every particular zoning restriction is justified.
- E
Saying the laws prevent rights from becoming “overly extensive” labels a limit as appropriate, but it doesn't explain why the limit is consistent with preserving rights. What would make an owner's freedom excessive? D answers that by identifying the possible infringement on another owner's rights. E leaves that connection unstated.
More Paradox questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Paradox questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.