PrepTest 138, Section 2, Question 16
Judge: The defendant admits noncompliance with national building(57 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(10 more words not shown)
- ALocal codes and(8 more words not shown)
- BLocal codes may(10 more words not shown)
- CAny behavior required(9 more words not shown)
- DIgnorance of the(11 more words not shown)
- EA behavior that(13 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why does confusion excuse violating a local code but not a national one?
The defendant admits violating national requirements and says he wasn't sure which set of rules applied. My first thought is: why not follow both? But perhaps the rules conflict, or one set demands something different. We haven't been told how they relate.
What we’re looking for
The judge draws a distinction. Confusion might excuse a local-code violation, but it doesn't excuse this national-code violation. Perhaps national requirements take priority. That's a possible explanation, but we need a principle establishing why the distinction makes sense. The strengthen question asks us to supply that missing relationship between the two sets of rules.
Working the answers
- A
Keeping the codes from overlapping doesn't explain why confusion is acceptable for one violation but not the other. If the requirements were entirely separate, misunderstanding which code applied could matter in either direction. A gives us separation without the judge's reason for treating the national violation differently.
- B
This allows local codes to demand less than national codes. That could make the defendant's excuse more plausible: following a less strict local rule might leave a national requirement unmet. We need a reason that confusion cannot excuse this national violation, not a situation where choosing the local code could explain it.
- CCorrect
This takes a different route from simply saying national rules take priority. Every national requirement also appears in the local requirements. So failing a national requirement means failing something required under either code. The defendant can't excuse that failure by saying he thought the local code applied.
Imagine the national code requires a smoke detector, while the local code requires both a detector and a fire extinguisher. A missing detector violates both. Confusion about which code applies wouldn't explain leaving it out. But a missing extinguisher violates only the local code; someone following the national requirements might omit it. That explains both sides of the judge's distinction.
- D
This rejects confusion as an excuse for either kind of violation. It would support rejecting the defendant's excuse, but it doesn't justify the judge's distinction, which leaves open that the same confusion might excuse noncompliance with local codes. C explains why the direction matters.
- E
This tells us that complying with one law might leave another unmet. It doesn't tell us which requirements are contained in which code. Without that direction, it cannot explain why a national violation defeats the excuse while a local violation might not.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.