PrepTest 153, Section 2, Question 13
The use of ordinary dictionaries in interpreting the(55 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(7 more words not shown)
- AThe periodic table(32 more words not shown)
- BThere is wide(25 more words not shown)
- CThe use of(25 more words not shown)
- DThe periodic table(36 more words not shown)
- EThe periodic table(18 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
I can see why a dictionary might help. Laws use words, and a dispute about a word's meaning is a sensible occasion to look up its definition. Chemistry is complicated too, but chemists can still use basic reference information while working on a complicated problem.
The phrase that gives me pause is “agreed-upon.” Which dictionary are we using? Oxford? Merriam-Webster? Another one? Having several dictionaries raises a question about whether they provide the same answer to the legal interpreter's problem.
What we’re looking for
To weaken this analogy, I'd look for a difference that matters to the claimed usefulness. The possibility of competing definitions is my first thought. A random difference between books and tables would not be enough; it needs to interfere with the role they are supposed to play.
Working the answers
- A
Alphabetical order and an arrangement that displays relationships are different ways of organizing information. But a dictionary could still provide useful, agreed-upon definitions even if its layout differs from the periodic table's. A does not show that the interpreter loses the relevant benefit of consulting a reference.
- BCorrect
This sharpens our concern. Merely having several dictionaries would not be a problem if they agreed on the definitions that mattered. B says their disagreements are likely to matter to legal interpretation, while the periodic table's information is widely agreed upon.
For a hypothetical example, suppose a legal dispute turns on whether something is “likely.” One reference defines that as more than a fifty-percent chance, while another uses a looser idea of something happening commonly. The two definitions could lead to different answers in the case. Looking up the word would not automatically settle the dispute; the interpreter would still need a reason to choose between definitions.
That is the relevant difference. Dictionaries might still help, but the analogy to an agreed source of background information no longer gives us the same justification for relying on them.
- C
Being used earlier or later in history does not determine whether a reference is useful now. Both sources could provide reliable background information despite having different histories. C does not challenge the feature on which the analogy depends.
- D
Needing to look something up is entirely compatible with a reference being useful. If a dictionary contains more information than anyone can memorize, that could make consulting it especially helpful. The argument does not require a lawyer to memorize the dictionary or a chemist to memorize the periodic table.
- E
A reference can help a group that is not its largest audience. A dictionary used mostly by readers and writers could still help a legal interpreter resolve a question about wording. Who uses it most does not establish whether it serves the relevant purpose for lawyers.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.