PrepTest 138, Section 2, Question 5
Principle: A law whose purpose is to protect(46 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(10 more words not shown)
- ASince there are(22 more words not shown)
- BMany attempts to(20 more words not shown)
- CVery few, if(17 more words not shown)
- DSnake populations are(15 more words not shown)
- ESnake charmers capture(15 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Do the snake charmers threaten the wild snake population? That's the fact we need before this principle can protect them.
The principle allows a gap between breaking a law's wording and deserving prosecution under that law. If a law is meant to protect wild animal populations, it should not be enforced against people whose actions don't threaten those populations. So capturing a snake might technically violate the law without creating the population-level threat the law is meant to prevent.
What we’re looking for
But the application hasn't established that the snake charmers fit that description. It tells us they break the capture law, then says they shouldn't be prosecuted. To justify that move, I want evidence that their actions don't threaten the wild population.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
There are few snake charmers, and each captures few snakes, so their effect on wild populations is minimal. That gives us a reason to place them within the principle's protection: their activity isn't a threat to the population the law aims to protect. Minimal effect doesn't mean literally no effect on any individual snake. The relevant concern is the wild population, and A directly addresses that concern.
- B
Difficulty proving a case doesn't show that the conduct should be exempt from prosecution under this principle. Prosecutors might fail because they don't understand capture procedures even when the captures threaten snake populations. This tells us about unsuccessful cases, not the population effects that would justify declining to prosecute.
- C
Not knowing about the law doesn't establish that the captures are harmless to wild populations. Ignorance might be a consideration under some other rule, but it isn't the condition given here.
- D
Being less threatened than another species doesn't mean that snake charmers pose no threat. Even a currently healthy snake population could be harmed if people began capturing large numbers of snakes. We need to assess the charmers' actions, not compare the overall condition of snakes with that of other species or compare their legal treatment.
- E
Their need to make a living explains a motive for capturing snakes. It doesn't tell us whether those captures threaten the population. People could believe an activity is their only livelihood and still cause exactly the harm this law is meant to prevent.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.