PrepTest 119, Section 1, Question 25
Many legal theorists have argued that the only(473 more words not shown)
The author distinguishes between two(13 more words not shown)
- Aprevent some harm(10 more words not shown)
- Bare intended to(8 more words not shown)
- Care voluntarily agreed(8 more words not shown)
- Dcould be considered(9 more words not shown)
- Eapply less directly(13 more words not shown)
Reading the passage
How do the driving and steroid examples differ? My first thought is to ask who gets hurt. But that doesn't work: a driver can be hurt in a collision too. Let's compare where the harm comes from instead.
What we’re looking for
Driving on either side is harmless in itself; the danger comes from people failing to coordinate. Steroids carry a health risk even apart from disagreement among competitors. That's the difference the opening of the third paragraph asks us to notice.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
It says the harm in the second example involves more than a failure to coordinate (paragraph 3). On an otherwise empty road, your choice of side doesn't create the coordination danger. Taking steroids can still endanger your health even when nobody else is taking them. The sports rule addresses that additional kind of harm.
- B
Both rules seek conformity to a shared standard: use the agreed side of the road or compete without steroids. That is a similarity.
- C
Both examples include consent. Drivers would agree if others did too; athletes would agree if they understood the rule and trusted enforcement.
- D
Both examples are offered as justifiable under the harm-prevention principle. Justifiability doesn't distinguish them.
- E
Both connect the prohibited conduct to harm less directly than prohibitions on burglary and assault. The final sentence explicitly links the sports example to the earlier one in this respect.
More Application questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Application questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.