PT159.S2.P4.Q27 > Analytics

Hide analysis

For most of the past century, scholars in the Anglo-American legal tradition have been skeptical of the view that legal ownership is a matter of possessing any single right. ████ ████ █████████ ███ ████ ████ █████████ ██ █ ███████ ██ ███████ ███████ ████ ██████████ ████████ █████████ ██ ██████ ███████ █████ ██████ ███ ██████ ██ ██████ █████ ██████████ ███ █████ ████████████ ███ ███████ ██ █████████ ███ ██ ████ ███ █████████ ███████ █████████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ █████████ █████████ ████████ ████ █████ ███ ███ ██ ██████ █████████████ ██ █████████ ██ ██████ █ ███████ ██ ███████ ████████ █████████ ███ ██ ████ ██████ ███

“Bundle of rights” perspective · Legal ownership involves multiple rights

The rights that are in the bundle arise from past judicial decisions in various legal cases. So ownership doesn’t constrain how judges decide property conflicts.

“Boundary theory” perspective · Legal ownership is the right to exclude others from a thing

Ownership does constrain how judges decide property conflicts.

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

Author’s critique of “boundary theory” · Doesn’t explain crucial aspects of ownership

Although it’s right that ownership constrains judges’ decisions, it focuses on who is excluded from ownership.

Criticism continued · Ownership is about having an special position in relation to the object.

It’s not just about excluding others from the object.

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

“Agend-setting” theory · Properly considers ownership as a special position to set the agenda for the resource

This is better than the “boundary” theory and the “bundle of rights” theory.

Passage Style

Critique or debate

27.

The author of the passage █████ ██ ████ ██████ ██ █████ ████ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ██████████ █████████ ███ ████████ ███████

It correctly identifies █ ███ ██████████████ ██ ██████ ███ ████ ███ █████████ ███████ ███ ██████ ██ █████████ ███████

The author doesn't think "boundary" theory correctly identifies a key responsibility of owners. In fact, she criticizes "boundary" theory for focusing on exclusion rather than on the special rights and responsibilities of an owner.

31%

It was the █████ ██████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ █████ █████ ████████ ███ ████████ ███ ████████████████ ███████

The author never indicates that "boundary" theory was criticized by legal scholars. Actually, scholars who agreed with "boundary" theory criticized the "bundle of rights" theory.

It correctly identifies █ ███████ ████ ██ █████████ ███ █ █████ ██████ ██ █████████ ███ █████████████ ████ ████████

Supported. The author acknowledges that "boundary" theory properly identifies exclusivity as important to the concept of ownership. However, she disagrees with the theory's understanding of the meaning of exclusivity.

54%

It holds that █████████ ███████████ ███████ ███ █████ ██ ████ ███ █████ ██████

The author doesn't discuss the right to sell in connection with "boundary" theory. She does discuss this right in connection with "bundle of rights," but not with "boundary" theory.

It is derived ████ █ ████ ███████ ██████ ██ ██████ ████ ██ ██████ █████████████ ████████

It's not clear whether "boundary" theory comes from a more general theory of rights. In any case, the only things related to "boundary" theory that the author says are correct are the theory's recognition of exclusivity as important to ownership and its recognition that ownership constrains legal decisions. Neither of these points relates to a broader theory from which "boundary" theory is derived.

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 159 - Section 2 - Passage 4 - Question 27

Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action

PrepTest 159 - Section 2 - 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?