PT10.S4.Q15 - new legislation would require

NotMyName

I chose B under timed conditions but switched to A in BR.

My issue with B is that there are no "potential" criminals here. If B said "nothing should be done to protect criminals at the cost of placing restrictions on law-abiding citizens" then it would be airtight. But "potential" doesn't work because if you are found in the prison directory, then you would have been convicted of a crime to be there in the first place.

I chose A in BR because it made the distinction I referred to above, but it doesn't actually connect to our conclusion so it can't be right.

LSATcantwin

The potential crime is not referring to the criminal's past crime; but instead, to the crime they might commit with the gun in the future (hence potential criminals)

This means ------- nothing should be done to restrict potential criminals (people that will use the gun illegally) at the cost of placing restrictions on law abiding citizens. (people who use the gun legally)

Does this help at all?

NotMyName

@LSATcantwin thanks for commenting. That makes sense and I think it needs to be true for this AC to be correct. But the AC doesn't say "preventing future crimes", it says "potential criminals". I don't know how bridge the two. Can we chalk it up to "pseudo" or "least bad AC"? It's definitely the best AC but this issue really tripped me up during BR.

LSATcantwin

@jkatz1488 said:
@LSATcantwin thanks for commenting. That makes sense and I think it needs to be true for this AC to be correct. But the AC doesn't say "preventing future crimes", it says "potential criminals". I don't know how bridge the two. Can we chalk it up to "pseudo" or "least bad AC"? It's definitely the best AC but this issue really tripped me up during BR.

Least bad I would say. I mean it stood out to me as the correct answer when I took this timed. I can definitely see what you're pointing to though. I think something that gets me with PSA questions is that things become more "abstract".

For instance with this AC it is saying "potential criminals" that becomes a LARGE group, that in-fact includes the people the stimulus is directly talking about.

Potential criminals - Babies who might one day commit a crime, people who see someone drop their wallet and decided to keep it, people who would use a gun to rob a store, people who have a trend to recommit crimes... like the list is HUGE.

and our principle just says its never okay to make a law that would restrict that group (potential criminals) if it also restricts law abiding citizens.

NotMyName

Yea it jumped out at me too under timed conditions. I need to get more comfortable with the structure of AC in pseudo. I do notice the abstractness you're speaking about. Since we are providing a principle, the correct AC is always at least one layer removed from it's subject in the stimulus. Thanks for pointing that out.