PrepTest 132, Section 2, Question 24
Legal commentator: The goal of a recently enacted(37 more words not shown)
The statements above, if true,(11 more words not shown)
- AThe law will(17 more words not shown)
- BSupporters of the(15 more words not shown)
- CThe law offers(11 more words not shown)
- DMost people believe(12 more words not shown)
- EThe law will(12 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A workplace can also be someone's home. What happens to the smoking ban then?
My first thought is a person running a business from home while coworkers work there too. The rule protects employees at work, but it cannot prohibit people from smoking in their own homes. That seems to leave an opening. I don't know how common that arrangement is, so I wouldn't yet draw a sweeping conclusion about how much protection the law provides overall.
What we’re looking for
The question asks which claim we have a basis to reject. We need a conflict with that definite limit, not a guess about public opinion or the legislators' expectations. Keep looking for a claim that promises protection where the home exception prevents the law from banning the smoking.
Working the answers
- A
We don't know whether the home exception contradicts the legislators' intentions. They might have deliberately accepted it while seeking protection in other workplaces. Or some might have expected more. The stated goal doesn't settle everything the supporters intended, so we can't reject A on this information.
- B
Supporters could believe the law will benefit many workers even with an exception for homes. The exception doesn't show that they lack that belief, or that no significant benefit is possible. We aren't told their views.
- C
Someone visiting a restaurant could benefit from restrictions aimed at protecting the restaurant's employees. That makes incidental protection outside one's own workplace possible. But we aren't given enough detail to establish that such protection must occur, so we cannot conclusively reject C. Possibility alone doesn't answer the question.
- D
Nothing tells us what most people believe about a right to smoke at home. The law's wording isn't a survey of public opinion. That belief could exist or not; either way, the stated exception would remain.
- ECorrect
Housecleaners give us a clear example of a home that is someone else's workplace. A resident can smoke in their own home without this law prohibiting it, even while the cleaner works there. So the law cannot provide the claimed workplace protection from that smoking.
This makes the gap more concrete than my initial idea of coworkers sharing a home office. We don't have to know how many such workers there are to see that the blanket claim of protection conflicts with the home exception.
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.