LSAT 23 - Section 3 - Question 20

The passage provides the most support for which one of the following?

This is a Most Strongly Supported question.

Legal rules are expressed in general terms. They concern classifications of persons and actions and they prescribe legal consequences for persons and actions falling into the relevant categories.

Can you think of an example of a legal rule to help make sense of these statements?

“Robbery is the unlawful taking of property from someone else’s person through the use of force or the threat of force.”

This rule classifies certain conduct as “robbery” – the conduct of unlawfully taking property from someone else’s body or near their body through the use of force or the threat of force. If you engage in that conduct, you are committing robbery.

The application of a rule to a particular case, therefore, involves a decision on whether the facts of the case fall within the categories mentioned in the rule.

Let’s say that Ronald pushed Tracy to the ground and grabbed the scarf she was wearing. Is that robbery? We have to decide whether the facts of this situation (Ronald pushed Tracy to the ground; Ronald grabbed her scarf) belong to the category of conduct that is classified as robbery.

This decision establishes the legal effect of what happened rather than any matter of fact.

Is Ronald’s pushing of Tracy to the ground and grabbing her scarf the “unlawful taking of property from someone else’s person through the use of force or the threat of force”? I decide that it is – what Ronald did fits that category of conduct. The last sentence of the stimulus says that this decision establishes the legal effect of what Ronald did, but does not establish a matter of fact. That’s confusing. Didn’t we establish facts? E.g., that Ronald pushed Tracy to the ground and grabbed her scarf. Yes, but that’s not what “this decision” is referring to. We did not decide that Ronald pushed Tracy to the ground. Ronald just pushed Tracy to the ground. So take a moment to see if you can identify the target of the referential “this decision.”

“This decision” refers to the “decision on whether the facts of the case fall within the categories mentioned in the rule.” In other words, it refers to our decision to label Ronald’s push as a “use of force.” That decision is not a matter of fact. Rather, it’s a legal conclusion. Similarly, labeling Ronald’s grabbing of Tracy’s scarf a “taking of property from someone else’s person” is not a matter of fact, but a claim about the legal effect of Ronald’s action.

The stimulus isn’t structured to lead to a particular conclusion that we should anticipate. So let’s just dive in and pick the answer that’s most supported.

Answer Choice (A) Legal rules, like matters of fact, are concerned with classifications of things such as actions.

It might be fair to say that legal rules are concerned with classifications of things such as actions. We know from the second sentence that legal rules are concerned with classifications of persons and actions, so we can say that legal rules are concerned with classifying actions (although not exclusively).

But when (A) says “like matters of fact,” that means (A) is asserting that matters of fact are also concerned with classifications of things such as actions. We don’t know from the stimulus whether matters of fact are about classifying actions. We don’t have any statements suggesting what matters of fact are concerned with.

A better version of (A) might go something like this: Legal rules, unlike matters of fact, are concerned with classifications of things such as actions.

Answer Choice (B) Matters of fact, like legal rules, can sometimes be expressed in general terms.

We know that legal rules can be expressed in general terms from the first sentence. But the stimulus doesn’t say whether matters of fact can be expressed in general terms.

Answer Choice (C) Making a legal decision does not involve matters of fact.

(C) is anti-supported. The correct version of (C) would actually say the opposite: Making a legal decision does involve matters of fact.

But (C) is tempting, because we know that the “decision on whether the facts of [a] case fall within the categories [of a] rule” does not “establish” a matter of fact. But that’s different from whether the decision involves a matter of fact.

The decision that Ronald’s pushing of Tracy was a “use of force” does not establish any fact – it established instead a legal effect of his pushing.

But the decision that Ronald’s pushing of Tracy was a “use of force” did involve a fact – it involves the fact that he pushed her.

Answer Choice (D) The application of a rule to a particular case need not be left to a judge.

(D) might be tempting if you’re thinking about what’s true in the real world – of course other people besides judges can apply rules. You’re applying rules all over the LSAT! But the stimulus doesn’t suggest anything about judges or about who can or cannot apply a rule.

Correct Answer Choice (E) Whether the facts of a case falls into a relevant category is not itself a matter of fact.

This is the more roundabout way of saying what our corrected version of (C) says. To reiterate, whether Ronald’s pushing of Tracy was a use of force involves a matter of fact (the fact that he pushed her), but it does not establish a matter of fact. If we decide that Ronald’s action does constitute a “use of force,” that decision, according to the last sentence of the stimulus, is not a fact. It is instead a claim about the legal effect of what he did.