LSAT 137 – Section 3 – Question 09

LSAT 137 - Section 3 - Question 09

October 2012

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:00

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
PT137 S3 Q09
+LR
+Exp
Strengthen +Streng
Sampling +Smpl
A
0%
159
B
0%
156
C
86%
164
D
13%
157
E
0%
163
130
142
153
 +Medium 146.416 +SubsectionMedium

Legal theorist: Governments should not be allowed to use the personal diaries of an individual who is the subject of a criminal prosecution as evidence against that individual. A diary is a silent conversation with oneself and there is no relevant difference between speaking to oneself, writing one’s thoughts down, and keeping one’s thoughts to oneself.

Summarize Argument
The legal theorist concludes that governments shouldn’t be allowed to use a person’s diary as evidence against them in a criminal prosecution. She supports this by saying that a diary is a conversation with oneself and there’s no real difference between talking to oneself, writing down one’s thoughts, and keeping those thoughts private.

Notable Assumptions
The legal theorist assumes that governments shouldn’t use a person’s words— whether spoken or written— against them if those words are only meant for that person herself.

A
Governments should not be allowed to compel corporate officials to surrender interoffice memos to government investigators.
The legal theorist is only talking about individual people and their private diaries. Interoffice memos are not analogous to diaries. Diaries are a private conversation with oneself, while interoffice memos are shared throughout an office.
B
When crime is a serious problem, governments should be given increased power to investigate and prosecute suspected wrongdoers, and some restrictions on admissible evidence should be relaxed.
The legal theorist is advocating for a specific restriction on admissible evidence used in government investigations, while (B) supports loosening some of these restrictions. (B) also fails to address why a person’s private words shouldn’t be used against them.
C
Governments should not be allowed to use an individual’s remarks to prosecute the individual for criminal activity unless the remarks were intended for other people.
This suggests that governments should never use a person’s words against them if those words were meant only for the person herself. This supports the idea that the government shouldn’t use someone’s diary as evidence against them.
D
Governments should not have the power to confiscate an individual’s personal correspondence to use as evidence against the individual in a criminal trial.
The legal theorist is discussing words directed to oneself, whether spoken or written. Correspondence isn’t analogous to a private diary because it’s between two or more people.
E
Governments should do everything in their power to investigate and prosecute suspected wrongdoers.
This weakens the argument because the legal theorist wants to limit what governments can do in investigations, while (E) argues that governments should do everything in their power. Presumably “everything” includes using someone’s personal diary against them.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 137 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply