PrepTest 124, Section 1, Question 16
Jurist: A nation's laws must be viewed as(49 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(8 more words not shown)
- AThose who formulate(11 more words not shown)
- BSometimes criteria other(19 more words not shown)
- CUnless it is(16 more words not shown)
- DThere is no(11 more words not shown)
- EA nation's laws(11 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why do we suddenly need exceptions?
The jurist begins by putting a moral standard above the written laws. We are supposed to judge whether the laws are adequate by comparing them with that standard. In other words, passing a law doesn't automatically settle whether the law is morally good.
The claim that this is the only sound way to prefer one legal system might make us pause. Couldn't someone prefer laws because they produce greater prosperity? Perhaps. But the question will ask what follows from the jurist's position, so our own alternative way of judging laws isn't the answer.
Then comes the conclusion: a moral rule against breaking laws must allow exceptions. That is the new piece I want to understand. Why would a rule about obeying the law need an escape hatch?
What we’re looking for
I don't have a precise prediction yet. For this inference question, let's look for an answer that connects the higher moral standard with the need for exceptions, rather than importing a new view about how laws ought to work.
Working the answers
- A
We don't know what lawmakers mainly care about while drafting statutes. They could care deeply about morality and still create laws that need to be judged against a higher moral standard. A claim about how to evaluate laws doesn't establish the lawmakers' motives.
- B
This resembles our own thought about judging laws by their consequences. But the jurist insists that a moral code supplies the sound basis for preferring one set of laws. The passage doesn't recommend using other criteria sometimes. We need the speaker's implication, not an alternative approach we might find appealing.
- C
This proposes a condition under which moral behavior and obeying the law would be indistinguishable. The jurist doesn't give us that condition. The point is to evaluate laws using a moral standard above them and leave room for exceptions to obedience. Nothing establishes that morality and legal compliance become identical unless certain moral violations are legally forbidden.
- D
Allowing exceptions to a moral duty to obey laws doesn't erase every such duty. It could be morally important to obey many laws while some situations justify breaking one. D takes the limited need for exceptions and turns it into a denial of any moral obligation to obey any statute.
- ECorrect
Sometimes a written law can conflict with the moral code against which it should be judged. That explains the escape hatch. If obeying a particular law would conflict with that higher standard, a blanket moral command never to break any law would create a problem.
The jurist's call for exceptions makes sense because the written laws and the moral standard can come apart. Otherwise, the passage would give us no reason to make room for exceptions on these grounds.
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.