LSAT 109 – Section 3 – Question 09

LSAT 109 - Section 3 - Question 09

December 2000

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:52

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
PT109 S3 Q09
+LR
Strengthen +Streng
Conditional Reasoning +CondR
Rule-Application +RuleApp
A
2%
159
B
8%
162
C
1%
156
D
87%
167
E
2%
159
132
144
156
 +Medium 148.18 +SubsectionMedium

At some point in any discussion of societal justice, the only possible doctrinal defense seems to be “That is the way we do things here.” Different communities that each recognize the dignity and equality of all citizens will, for example, nevertheless settle on somewhat different provisions for the elderly. So we can see that general principles of justice are never sufficient to determine the details of social policies fixed within a particular state.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes a government’s social policies can’t be determined using only general principles of justice. Why not? Because defending any policy—such as provisions for the elderly—on the grounds of social justice eventually requires invoking arbitrary choices or circumstances specific to that policy.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes there’s no other policy, besides those mentioned, that can be determined by general principle without relying on arbitrary choices or specific circumstances. In addition, he assumes there’s no general principle of justice that’s capable of fully determining a policy about provisions for the elderly.

A
Although two socialist states each adhered to the same electoral principles, one had a different type of machine for counting ballots in public elections than the other did.
This concerns electoral principles and policies, not principles of justice and social policies. Since the author’s principle refers only to social policies, this example is irrelevant.
B
Two democratic industrial states, both subscribing to capitalistic economic principles, differed markedly in the respective proportions of land they devoted to forestry.
This example concerns land distribution, not social policies. There’s no indication the states’ social policies are the reason they devote different amounts of land to forestry.
C
Although each adhered to its own principles, a democracy and a monarchy each had the same distribution of wealth in its population.
This gets the desired structure backward. It refers to states with different principles but similar outcomes, whereas the author argues states with similar principles will have different policy details.
D
Two states founded on and adhering to similar principles of justice had different requirements that had to be met in order to be eligible for government-subsidized day care.
This is an example of the point argued by the author. It shows two states with similar principles of justice can have social policies with different details.
E
Two societies based on different principles of justice, each adhering to its own principles, had the same unemployment benefits.
This gets the desired structure backward. It refers to states with different principles of justice but similar policies, whereas the author argues states with similar principles of justice will have differences in their policies.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 109 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply