PrepTest 113, Section 4, Question 21
Political theorist: Newly enacted laws need a period(54 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(11 more words not shown)
- AWhether a law(14 more words not shown)
- BWhether a law(12 more words not shown)
- CThe repeal of(14 more words not shown)
- DThe short-term consequences(16 more words not shown)
- EThe long-term consequences(14 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Give the law time to work before deciding to throw it out.
That's the idea behind the proposed period of immunity. It protects a new law from repeal, except in dire circumstances. It isn't a special window for repealing the law more easily. Getting that straight makes the rest of the argument easier to follow.
The theorist says a new law's immediate effects can be painful because people aren't used to it, while its benefits take time to become clear as people learn how to use it. If we judge it immediately, we might see the difficulties without yet seeing the benefits. I can understand the reason for waiting. We aren't being asked to assume every new law will ultimately be good; we're considering whether to give it a chance before making that judgment.
What we’re looking for
For a supporting principle, I'd look for a reason that this incomplete early picture is a poor basis for deciding whether to keep the law. Why should the possibility of later benefits matter enough to justify some initial protection from repeal?
Working the answers
- A
Voters' beliefs aren't the point of the argument. The theorist discusses when a law's consequences become apparent, not whether voters should have a say or whether their predictions are reliable. A doesn't explain why we should protect a new law while waiting to learn about its effects.
- BCorrect
This says the decision should depend primarily on long-term consequences. Now the reason for waiting is clear: the effects that should carry the most weight are the very ones the theorist says are initially obscure.
Repealing the law immediately because the adjustment is painful could prevent us from finding out whether its longer-term benefits justify keeping it. B supplies the priority that makes the proposed waiting period reasonable. It doesn't guarantee that the law will be beneficial, specify how long the period should last, or erase the exception for dire circumstances.
- C
This compares the difficulty of passing and repealing laws. But we don't know how difficult passage is, and matching that difficulty doesn't necessarily require a period of immunity. Repeal could be procedurally difficult immediately, or relatively easy after a waiting period. The argument needs a reason to wait for the consequences to become clear.
- D
This compares how carefully to consider the short-term effects of repeal and passage. The theorist's concern is different: short-term pain may be visible before long-term benefits are. D doesn't tell us why the later consequences should justify protecting the law in the meantime.
- E
This says what the relative benefits should be: greater in the long term than in the short term. It doesn't say that long-term consequences should receive the greatest weight when deciding whether to retain a law.
Someone could want laws to have greater long-term benefits yet still favor repealing a new law as soon as its immediate effects are painful. B more directly supplies the decision rule that makes waiting for the later effects sensible.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.