LSAT 127 – Section 2 – Question 17

LSAT 127 - Section 2 - Question 17

December 2003

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Target time: 1:40

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question QuickView	Type	Tags	Answer Choices	Curve	Question Difficulty	Psg/Game/S Difficulty	Explanation
PT127 S2 Q17	+LR	Point at issue: disagree +Disagr Net Effect +NetEff	A 1% 156 B 14% 161 C 14% 160 D 4% 157 E 67% 166	145 156 167	+Harder	146.61 +SubsectionMedium

Glen: An emphasis on law’s purely procedural side produces a concern with personal rights that leads to the individual’s indifference to society’s welfare. Law’s primary role should be to create virtuous citizens.

Sara: But such a role would encourage government to decide which modes of life are truly virtuous; that would be more dangerous than government’s being overprotective of individuals’ rights.

Speaker 1 Summary

Glen argues that the primary role of the law should be to create virtuous citizens. Why? Because focusing on the procedural aspect of law puts too much emphasis on individuals rather than overall societal welfare. (Glen appears to assume that the options are either a procedural focus or a focus on creating virtuous citizens.)

Speaker 2 Summary

Sarah implies the conclusion that the law’s primary focus should not be on creating virtuous citizens. Why? Because that focus would encourage the government to decide what counts as “virtuous,” which Sarah says is a worse alternative than caring too much about individuals. In other words, Sarah thinks that Glen’s conclusion would lead to a worse outcome than the issue Glen wants to solve.

Objective

We need to find a disagreement. Glen and Sarah disagree about whether the law’s primary role should be creating virtuous citizens.

citizens can be assumed to be capable of making good choices without governmental interference

Neither speaker talks about whether people are capable of making good choices without governmental interference. The discussion never touches on how the presence or absence of governmental interference changes people’s behavior.

virtuousness on the part of citizens is more important than the protection of citizens’ rights

Neither speaker considers the importance of virtuousness on the part of citizens. How citizens behave is actually pretty irrelevant to this discussion, which is about what role the law should prioritize.

there is an inherent danger in allowing government to decide what constitutes virtuous behavior among citizens

Sarah would likely agree with this, but Glen never expresses an opinion. Glen only mentions the dangers of government focusing on individual rights, and doesn’t talk about the possible dangers of government focusing on virtue.

an emphasis on law’s purely procedural side results in government’s being overprotective of citizens’ rights

Glen agrees with this, but Sarah doesn’t disagree. Sarah’s argument is that the alternative (government being too concerned with virtue) is worse. She never actually contradicts Glen’s claim about overprotecting individual rights.

the cultivation of virtue among citizens should be the primary role of law

This is the conclusion of Glen’s argument, meaning Glen agrees. Sarah’s argument, on the other hand, supports the unstated conclusion that this is not the case and that the law should focus on other roles. This is the disagreement.

LSAT 127 – Section 2 – Question 17

LSAT 127 - Section 2 - Question 17

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 127 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Leave a Reply Cancel