Self-study
The following passages are adapted from articles recently published in North American law review journals.
███████ █
P1
██ ████████ ███ ██████ ██████ ██████ ████ █████████ ██ ██████ █████ █████ ███████ ██ ███ ███ ███ ██████████ █████████ ███ ██ █████ ██ ██ ████████ ███ █████ ██ ███ ███████████████ ██ ███ █████████ ████████████ ████ ███ █████ ████ ██ █████ ██ ███████ ███████████ ███████████ ██████ ███████ ████ █████████ ██ █ ████████ ██ ██████ █ ████████ ███ ██ ████████████ ███████ ███████████ ██████ █ ██ ████ ██████ █ ████ █████████ ██████████ ███ ███ █████ ██ ████ ██████ ████████ ██ █████ ██ ████ ████ █ ███████████ ████ ██ ████ ██████████████ █ ████ █ █████ █████ ██ ████ ██████ ██ ███ ██ ██ ███████ ██ ███████ █████
Question ·
Why is blackmail illegal under Canadian and US law?
Blackmail combines two acts that are each legal alone -- threatning to expose info, and seeking money from another. Why is it illegal to combine these actions?
P2
███ ████ ██ █ ██████████ ██████ ██ █████████ ███ ████████ █████████████ ███████ █ █████ ████ ███████ █████ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ██████ ██████████ ███████ ████ █████████████ ████ █████████ ████████ ███████ ████████ ████████ ████ ██ ███ ██████ ████████ ██ ████████ ███ ████ ██ ███ ████ ████████ ██ ███████████ ███ ██ ███████ ████████ ████████ █████████ ██ ████████
Consequences of lack of answer ·
No clear line between legal and illegal blackmail
Blackmail statutes are broad and cover conduct that most people would think should be legal.
P3
██ ██ █████████ ████████ ██ ██████████ █ ████████ ██████ ██ ██████████ ███ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ███ █████████ ███████████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██████████ ███ ███████████ ███████ ████ ██ █████ ██ █████ █ █████████████ █████████ ████████ ████ ███████ ████ █ █████ ██████ ███ █████████ ██████ ████ ██ █████ █████ ██████ ██ ███████ █████ ████ ███ ████████████ ███ ████████ ████ █ ███████████ █████████ ██ ████ ██ █ ████████ ██████ ████ ██████ ███ ███████████ ██ ██████████ ████
Answer to question ·
Illegal because of triangular structure
Blackmailer uses leverage that's dependent on a third party (the government). This misuses a third party for the blackmailer's own benefit.
███████ █
P4
█████████ █████ ███ ███ ██ ███████ ████████ ███ ██████████ ██ ███ ███ ██████████ █████ ███████ █████ █████ ██████████ ██ ████████ ██████████ ██ ███████ ██ ███████████ ███████ ███ ██████ ██████ █████ ███ ██ ███████████ ███ ████████ ██ ██████████ ██ ███ ██████ ███████
Blackmail in Roman law ·
No special category for blackmail
Roman law evaluated actions based on harm, not based on the legality or illegality of the action itself.
P5
█████ █████████████████ ███████ ██ ███████████ ████ █ ██████ ██ █████████ █████ ██ ██████ ██ ████████ ███ ███████ ███████████ ████ ████████ ██ ███ ██████ ███ ██ ███ █████ █████ █████ ████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████ ██ ███████████ ████ █████ █████ ███ ██████████ ███ ██ ██████████ ███ █████████ ███ ██████ ██ █████ ███████ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ███ ████████████ ███ █████ ███ ███ ██ ██████████ ██ ██████ ████████ █████ ███ ██ ████ ████████ █████ ███ ███ █████████ ██ █████████ ███ ████████████
Assumption about blackmail ·
Blackmail presumed harmful if it revealed hurt victim's reputation
Party who threatened blackmail had burden to prove good reason for revealing the info.
P6
██ ██████ █████████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ███ ████████ ████ █████ ████████ ███ ████ ██ ███████ ██████████ ██ ██████████ █ █████ ██████████ ████████ █████ ███ ███ ██████ ███████████ █████ ███████████ ████ ███████ ████ ████ ██████████ ████ ████ █████ ███ ████ ██ ██ ████ █████ ███ ██████████ ██ ████████ ███████████ ███ █████████ ████ ██ ███ ██████████ ███ ████ ████ ███ █ ██████████ ███████ ███ █████ ████ █ ██████ ████ ███ ██████ ███████████ ███ ██ ████████ ██ ██████ █████████ ████ ███████ █████████ ████████ ████████ ██ ██ ████ ███ ███ ████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ██████ ███
Relevance of truth ·
Truth of a revealed fact not enough to make blackmail legal
True revelation was legal only if there was a legitimate purpose in revealing the info and the government had an interest in having the info revealed.
Passage Style
14.
Which one of the following ██ ███ ███████ █████ ██ ████ ████████
Question Type
Main point
Split Approach: After passage A, eliminate any answer choice that doesn’t reflect the topic of passage A. Then, after passage B, choose the remaining answer choice that best reflects the topic of passage B (and of passage A).
Sequential Approach: Each passage describes a set of principles for how blackmail can be considered unlawful. Although they look at different principles, legal systems, and time periods, the central topic of both passages is the legality of blackmail.
a
why triangular transactions ███ ███████
This misstates author A’s central topic. He’s not trying to convince us why triangular transactions are illegal. He only brings up triangular transactions to support the larger point that the illegality of blackmail can, in fact, be justified. This is enough reason to eliminate (A). A quicker reason, though, is that passage B doesn’t do any analysis of triangular transactions in the first place.
b
the role of ███ █████ ██ ████ ██████ ██ █ █████ █████ ██████
Author A doesn’t discuss the role of this right, why this right exists, or what its purpose is—he just notes that this right is part of the cause of the blackmail paradox. This is enough reason to eliminate (A). Similarly, author B doesn’t look at the role of this right either. She just notes that in Rome, speech was only protected in certain circumstances, and that this had implications for how blackmail was handled.
c
how blackmail has ████ ███████ ██ █ █████ █████ ██████
Passage A looks at how blackmail has been handled (and how its illegality can be justified) in the Canadian and U.S. legal system. Passage B looks at how blackmail has been handled in the classical Roman legal system.
d
the history of █████████ ██ █ █████ ███████
Passage A doesn’t trace any history; it only looks at how blackmail is currently handled. This is enough to eliminate (D). Also, although passage B looks at blackmail in an earlier time period, its topic isn’t the “history” of the concept of blackmail—it’s how the act of blackmail was handled legally at that one point in time. (C) captures that point much better.
e
why no good ███████████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ █████████ ██████
Author A believes a good explanation does exist, and he presents that explanation in P3. This is enough to eliminate (E). Also, author B never questions whether a good explanation exists. She simply explains how the legality of blackmail was analyzed under a certain legal system. (C) captures that point much better.