PrepTest 135, Section 3, Question 18
The following passages are adapted from articles recently(479 more words not shown)
Passage A(256 more words not shown)
Passage B(216 more words not shown)
Based on what can be(28 more words not shown)
- Abribing tax officials(6 more words not shown)
- Brevealing to public(13 more words not shown)
- Ctestifying in court(11 more words not shown)
- Dinforming a government(10 more words not shown)
- Erevealing to the(11 more words not shown)
Reading the passage
Look for a disclosure that separates the two legal approaches. A protects the separate revelation of criminal or embarrassing private information. B restricts harmful disclosures unless they have a legitimate purpose and concern something the public authorities have an interest in learning.
What we’re looking for
So a truthful but damaging revelation, without a demand for money or an identified public purpose, is a promising prediction. Keep the comparison tied to these accounts; we aren't being asked to supply outside law about every possible offense.
Working the answers
- A
Neither author discusses bribing tax officials. The issue is disclosure and blackmail, not whether a payment can purchase an official's cooperation.
- B
Embezzling military funds gives the public authorities a reason to want the information. This fits B's allowance for justified disclosure rather than showing conduct Roman law would prohibit. It doesn't establish the contrast we need.
- C
Knowingly false court testimony isn't the protected truthful disclosure described in A. Nothing here establishes that it would be lawful under Canadian and U.S. common law, so it fails that half of the question.
- D
Concealing taxable income also concerns the authorities directly. Reporting it to the tax agency is not the kind of purely damaging private revelation that separates the two accounts.
- ECorrect
This supplies embarrassing private information without an accompanying demand for payment. A treats that separate disclosure as protected. Under B, the fact that the affair really occurred would not itself justify harming the person's reputation. The example supplies no legitimate public purpose for revealing it. We shouldn't invent one merely because the person is a politician.
More Application questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Application questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.