PT137.S1.P4.Q27 > Analytics

Hide analysis

Can a sovereign have unlimited legal power. ██ █ █████████ ████ ████ █████████ █████ ██████ ████ ███ █████████ ██████████ ███ ███ █████ █████ ██ █████ ██ ████ ██████████ ████████ ███ ███ █████ ██████ ███ █████ ██ █████ ████ ████ ███ █████████ ██ ██████ ███ █████████ █████ ██████ ███████ █████████████ ███ ███████ ████████████ ████ ███████████ █████████ ██ █████████████ █████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ ████████████

Question · Can a sovereign be omnipotent?

If so, then the sovereign has the power to limit its own power which means it no longer has unlimited power. That's the paradox of omnipotence.

OPA · Sovereign omnipotence can be a source of difficulty for soverigns

E.g., the English and French monarchies experienced this

OPA · It can be good for sovereigns to have their power be limited

E.g., having absolute power means you can refuse to honor debts which means that you can't get a loan.

██ ███ ████████ ██ ██████ █████ ████████ ███ ███████ ███ ██████ ██████████ ████████ ████ ███████ ██ ████████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ███ ███████████ ████████ ████████ ███████ ██████ █████ ████████ ██████ ██████ ██ █████ █████ ██ ██ █████ ████████ ███████ ███ ███████ ██ ███████████ ████ ███ █████ █████ ██ ████████ █████ ████ █████ ███ ██ ███ ██ ██████████ ████████ █████ ████ ████ ████ █████ ███ ████ ██████ ██ ██████████ █████████████ █████ ████████ ██████ █ ██████████ ███ █████████████ ███████ ███████████ ██████ ███ ████████ ████ ████████████ ███ █████████████ █████████ ████ ████ ████████ ████ ███████ ███ ████████ ██████ ████████ █████ ████ ████████ ████ ████ ███ █████████ ███████ █████████

OPA Example · French and English's unlimited power hurt them

These sovereigns failed to pay debt and expropriated property. Consequently, creditors started demanding high interest rates to capture risk of default.

█████ ███ ████████ █████ ████ ███ ██████████████ ██████████ ███████ ██ ███████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████████ ██ ████ ██████ ████ █████████ ████████ ███████████ ██████████ ██████████ ███ ███████ █████ ████████ ███████████ ██ █████ ███████████ ██████████ █████████ ████ █████ ███ ████████ ████████████ █████████ ███ ████████ ███████ ███ ███████ ████████ █████████ ██ ████████ ███ ███████████ ██████████ ████ █ ████████ ███████ ██ ███████ ███ ███████ █████████ █████████ ███ ████████ █████ █████ ███████ ███████ █████████ ████ ███ █████ █████ █████ ███ ██████

OPA Solution / Conclusion · The Parliament's limit of the Crown's power resolved the paradox

The Parliament was able to credibly commit the Crown to honor is debts. Consequently, the Crown was able to borrow at a much lower rate.

██████ ██ ██████ █████████ ███ ██████ ███████ ██ ███ ████ █████ ██ ██ ███ ████████████ ██ ████ ████ ██████████████ ████████████ ███████ ██████████ ██ ████████ █████ ██████ ███

OPA legacy · Constitutional limits to powers as a benefit is now the conventional view

███ ████ ████████ ███████ ███ ██████ ██ █████ █████████████ ███ ████ ██ ████ ███████ ███

Author’s Critique · Constitutions can fail to limit power

Author’s Argument · Did not solve the problem; merely shifted it

The paradox of omnipotence still exists. All the constitution does is to take omnipotence away from the Crown and give it to itself, the Parliament.

Passage Style

Critique or debate

Problem-analysis

27.

Which one of the following ██████ █████ ██ ████████ ██ █████ ███ ████████ ███ ███ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ███ ████████

Question Type

Implied

Other’s perspective

What’s something the author disagrees with North and Weingast about? Whether putting power over the monarchs into the hands of Parliament solved the problem of omnipotence. North and Weingast think it did, but the author thinks it didn’t.

After 1688, commercial █████████ ██ ███████ ███████ ██████████ ██ ███████ █████ ████████ ███████

If anything, the author and North and Weingast might agree about this. They both recognize that monarchs would borrow money more easily from creditors after power was placed in Parliament.

The paradox of ███████████ ██ ██ ██████ █ █████████ ███████ ███ ███ ██████ ███████████

We don’t know whether North and Weingast think the problem has been eliminated for “any actual government.” There might be some other government in the world that has this problem. So we don’t know that this is a point of disagreement between the author and North and Weingast.

10%

In England, the █████ ███ ████ ██ ██████ █████ ██ █████ ████████ █████ █████ ███ ████████ ██████████ ████ ███████

If anything, the author and North and Weingast might agree about this. They both recognize that monarchs would borrow money more easily from creditors after power was placed in Parliament.

In the seventeenth ████████ ███████ ███ ██████ ████████ ███ █ ██████████ ███ ███████ ██ ██████ █████████ ████████████

This is a point of agreement between the author and North and Weingast.

The constitutional settlement ███████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████████ ██████ ███ ███████ ██ █████████ ████████████

North and Weingast would agree with (E). We know they argue that the constitutional settlement stopped the monarchs’ conduct in backing out of loans, and we also know that the conventional view represented by North and Weingast is that constitutional arrangements benefit sovereigns by limiting their power. But the author pushes back on (E). She believes the settlement didn’t solve the problem of omnipotence. So (E) is a claim accepted by North and Weingast but not by the author.

82%

Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.

It takes about five minutes.

Take the free diagnostic

More free LSAT prep: Sample LSAT questions Full-length diagnostic & practice test All free LSAT resources

PrepTest 137 - Section 1 - Passage 4 - Question 27

Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action

PrepTest 137 - Section 1 - Passage 4 - Question 27

Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Want to know why the right answer is right?