PrepTest 137, Section 3, Question 9
Legal theorist: Governments should not be allowed to(48 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(12 more words not shown)
- AGovernments should not(13 more words not shown)
- BWhen crime is(24 more words not shown)
- CGovernments should not(22 more words not shown)
- DGovernments should not(20 more words not shown)
- EGovernments should do(10 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A diary might contain information that helps solve a crime. So why should the fact that it was written for oneself prevent the government from using it as evidence?
The legal theorist describes a diary as a silent conversation with oneself, like thinking privately or talking to oneself. Fine—but we still need a rule explaining why that feature makes its use in a prosecution unacceptable. Calling something private doesn't, by itself, tell us what the government should be allowed to do with it.
What we’re looking for
My own preference about diary evidence doesn't answer this question. We're asked for a principle supporting the theorist's position. I'd look for a rule protecting self-directed thoughts or remarks from being used against the person in a criminal case. That would connect the description of a diary to the proposed restriction.
Working the answers
- A
Corporate interoffice memos aren't the private conversation with oneself described here. A restriction on forcing corporate officials to surrender those memos doesn't establish a restriction on using an individual's diary. Both involve written material, but that broad similarity doesn't supply the needed connection.
- B
We aren't told that crime is a serious problem in the relevant situation. Even if it were, relaxing some restrictions on evidence wouldn't support the theorist's proposed protection for diaries. The answer moves toward expanded investigative powers without establishing this particular limit on their use.
- CCorrect
The government may use a person's remarks against that person only if the remarks were intended for others. The diary, as described in the argument, is directed at oneself. It doesn't meet the principle's requirement, so the government shouldn't use it in the prosecution.
That supplies the missing bridge. It doesn't mean the individual cannot be prosecuted at all; the rule excludes this kind of evidence against the individual.
- D
‘Personal correspondence’ ordinarily means communications with other people, such as personal letters. The argument instead emphasizes a conversation with oneself. Also, restricting the government's power to confiscate material doesn't directly settle whether it may use material obtained another way. D sounds protective of privacy, but C directly covers both the self-directed remarks and their use in prosecution.
- E
A general instruction to investigate and prosecute wrongdoers doesn't establish the proposed restriction on diary evidence. It could motivate using helpful information from a diary, rather than excluding it. The theorist needs a specific reason to limit evidence, not simply a reason to pursue criminal investigations.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.