PrepTest 152, Section 1, Question 9
Legal doctrine: The government cannot appropriate private property(42 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(12 more words not shown)
- AA government should(17 more words not shown)
- BGovernments must balance(16 more words not shown)
- CRegulations that significantly(15 more words not shown)
- DOwners of private(19 more words not shown)
- EA government can(14 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
They still own the land. Does stopping them from building on it count as appropriating it?
The doctrine requires compensation when the government appropriates private property. The application describes a regulation that reduces property value by blocking construction. That could be a serious loss for the owners, but we need a rule explaining why that loss counts as appropriation even though the government hasn't physically taken the lots.
What we’re looking for
So I'd look for a principle linking this kind of restriction to appropriation. Once that link is in place, the doctrine supplies the compensation requirement. We're not deciding whether protecting the shoreline is a good policy; we're deciding whether the stated doctrine applies to it.
Working the answers
- A
This concerns whether lakeside property should be regulated differently from other property. Equal treatment might bear on the policy decision, but it doesn't establish that blocking construction counts as appropriation. The same compensation question would remain even if identical regulations applied everywhere.
- B
Balancing the two groups' rights doesn't tell us what that balance requires here. It might support preserving the shoreline, compensating the owners, or some combination, but B doesn't decide among those possibilities. In particular, it never connects the lost economic value to appropriation.
- CCorrect
This supplies the missing connection: a regulation that significantly reduces a property's economic value counts as appropriation. That gives us a basis for applying the compensation rule to the loss caused by blocking construction. Keep the qualifier: C concerns significant reductions, not every tiny change in value. Of the choices, it most directly justifies treating the construction restriction and resulting loss as the kind of government action covered by the doctrine.
- D
This pushes against the application. If owners alone must bear the economic risks of regulations affecting their property's use, we have less reason to say the government must compensate them for this loss. D doesn't help classify the regulation as an appropriation requiring payment.
- E
This adds a condition for when appropriation is allowed: there must be a compelling public interest. It doesn't tell us whether the construction ban is an appropriation in the first place. Even if protecting the lake served such an interest, we would still need the missing classification before applying the compensation rule.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.