PrepTest 157, Section 3, Question 9
Most lawyers hold that violations of the rights(77 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the argument(11 more words not shown)
- Afails to provide(13 more words not shown)
- Bhas a premise(11 more words not shown)
- Citself provides significant(7 more words not shown)
- Dfails to provide(13 more words not shown)
- Edefends a view(12 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
We “visit” a website. Does that make visiting it like walking onto someone's land?
The author points to words that overlap: “site” and “visiting.” But those words could describe very different activities. A public website might be put online specifically so people can view its words and pictures. Entering a physical property against the owner's wishes is a different situation. Before applying the same protection, I'd want to know what kinds of encroachment are involved and why they call for the same response.
The argument never supplies that connection. It moves from shared vocabulary to a recommendation about the law. We don't have to decide that trespass principles could never be relevant online. The problem is that the words alone haven't shown why extending them would be reasonable.
What we’re looking for
For the flaw question, look for the unsupported analogy: the author shows that we talk about the two things similarly, without showing that they are similar in the way that matters for this recommendation.
Working the answers
- A
The author doesn't need to establish that people widely regard websites as literal real estate. A rule might reasonably apply to two different things if they share a relevant feature. The missing support concerns that feature, not whether everyone classifies websites as land.
- B
The premises don't simply assume that trespass law should apply online. They offer shared vocabulary as a reason for that conclusion. It's a weak reason, but it isn't the conclusion repeated as its own support. Compare “We should do this because we should do this,” which would be that mistake.
- C
Most lawyers preferring copyright law doesn't itself establish that extending trespass law would be unreasonable. One form of protection could be best while another still had a useful role. The passage's central problem is the missing basis for the analogy, not significant evidence proving its own conclusion wrong.
- DCorrect
“Merely verbal” means the similarity may exist only in the words we use. Both settings involve a “site” that someone can “visit,” but the argument gives no evidence that the underlying activities or harms are alike in a way that justifies the same legal protection. That's the step it needed to support.
- E
The experts are associated with the copyright approach mentioned at the start. The author then proposes extending trespass law on the basis of the word comparison. The reasoning isn't “Experts support my view, so my view is right.” It relies on the analogy.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.