LNAT Basic 3 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A passage argues that judges should not make law because they are unelected. Which response best challenges this view?
- Judges are appointed by elected officials and serve a constitutional role in interpreting law. (Correct answer)
- Elected legislatures also make mistakes in lawmaking.
- Judicial appointments have become increasingly politicized in recent years.
- Most democratic countries have some form of elected judiciary.
Correct answer: Judges are appointed by elected officials and serve a constitutional role in interpreting law.
Judicial legitimacy can derive from constitutional design and democratic appointment processes rather than direct election, directly countering the democratic deficit objection.
Question 2: If a passage contains the argument 'Because crime rates fell after the new policy was introduced, the policy caused the reduction,' what fallacy is present?
- Ad hominem — attacking the character of the policymaker.
- Post hoc ergo propter hoc — assuming causation from sequence. (Correct answer)
- Straw man — misrepresenting the opposing position.
- Circular reasoning — using the conclusion as a premise.
Correct answer: Post hoc ergo propter hoc — assuming causation from sequence.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc ('after this, therefore because of this') is the error of inferring causation solely from temporal sequence without ruling out other factors.
Question 3: When approaching an LNAT comprehension passage with a dense academic argument, the most effective first step is to:
- Read all answer choices before reading the passage to guide your focus.
- Identify the main thesis and the primary line of reasoning before analysing individual paragraphs. (Correct answer)
- Highlight every statistic and proper noun in the passage.
- Skim only the first and last sentences of each paragraph.
Correct answer: Identify the main thesis and the primary line of reasoning before analysing individual paragraphs.
Locating the central argument first gives you a framework for interpreting supporting details and answering specific questions accurately.
Question 4: A passage distinguishes between 'rule utilitarianism' and 'act utilitarianism.' The primary difference is that rule utilitarianism:
- Judges each individual act by whether it maximises overall happiness.
- Evaluates acts by whether they conform to rules that generally produce the best outcomes. (Correct answer)
- Rejects the relevance of consequences entirely.
- Applies only to legal rules made by governments, not private conduct.
Correct answer: Evaluates acts by whether they conform to rules that generally produce the best outcomes.
Rule utilitarianism holds that the right action follows rules whose general observance produces the best consequences, rather than calculating outcomes case by case.
Question 5: Which of the following is an example of an 'ad hominem' fallacy in a legal or philosophical debate?
- 'The defendant's argument is flawed because it ignores relevant precedent.'
- 'We should dismiss this scholar's theory because she has been divorced twice.' (Correct answer)
- 'The prosecution's evidence is circumstantial and cannot establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.'
- 'This statute is ambiguous and should be interpreted in favour of the accused.'
Correct answer: 'We should dismiss this scholar's theory because she has been divorced twice.'
Dismissing an argument based on personal details about the arguer rather than on the merits of the argument itself is the ad hominem fallacy.
Question 6: In the LNAT context, 'inference to the best explanation' (abduction) is best described as:
- Deriving a conclusion that must be true if all premises are true.
- Choosing the hypothesis that, if true, would best explain the available evidence. (Correct answer)
- Generalising from a large number of observations to a universal rule.
- Rejecting a claim because it has not been proven beyond doubt.
Correct answer: Choosing the hypothesis that, if true, would best explain the available evidence.
Abductive reasoning selects the most plausible explanatory hypothesis from competing alternatives, commonly used in legal reasoning to evaluate evidence.
Question 7: A passage about freedom of speech argues that offensive speech should be protected because restricting it creates a 'slippery slope.' The slippery slope argument is considered weak when:
- There is no clear mechanism showing how one restriction would lead to broader censorship. (Correct answer)
- The speaker uses emotional language to describe the consequences.
- The argument is made by a private individual rather than a government official.
- Freedom of speech is enshrined in the constitution of the country discussed.
Correct answer: There is no clear mechanism showing how one restriction would lead to broader censorship.
A slippery slope argument is only valid if there is a plausible causal chain linking the first step to the feared outcome; without it, the argument is speculative.
LNAT Basic 3
A passage argues that judges should not make law because they are unelected.
Which response best challenges this view?