LNAT Clarity and Precision in Writing 4 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A statute reads: 'No vehicle shall enter the park.' A bicycle rider argues this does not apply to bicycles. What drafting principle does this dispute illustrate?
- The importance of defining key terms within the statute. (Correct answer)
- The need to use active voice in legislative drafting.
- The problem with using double negatives in legal texts.
- The requirement to list all prohibited items explicitly.
Correct answer: The importance of defining key terms within the statute.
Failure to define 'vehicle' creates interpretive disputes; defining terms eliminates ambiguity about what falls within a statute's scope.
Question 2: Which sentence contains a 'squinting modifier' that creates ambiguity?
- Running quickly, the lawyer reached the courthouse.
- The judge who often rules harshly was reassigned.
- Witnesses who lie frequently face perjury charges. (Correct answer)
- The defendant carefully read the indictment.
Correct answer: Witnesses who lie frequently face perjury charges.
'Frequently' in 'Witnesses who lie frequently face perjury charges' squints because it could modify either 'lie' or 'face,' creating two different meanings.
Question 3: What is the main precision problem with using 'and/or' in legal documents?
- It is grammatically non-standard and rejected by style guides.
- It creates three possible interpretations: A alone, B alone, or both A and B. (Correct answer)
- It implies that only one of the two conditions can be satisfied.
- It is too informal for use in binding contracts.
Correct answer: It creates three possible interpretations: A alone, B alone, or both A and B.
'And/or' is imprecise because readers cannot determine whether both elements are required, either element suffices, or any combination applies.
Question 4: Evaluate this sentence for structural clarity: 'The plaintiff, who had been employed by the defendant for six years and who had an unblemished record, filed suit.' What is the best revision strategy?
- Break it into two sentences, moving background information to a separate sentence. (Correct answer)
- Remove the relative clauses entirely as they are irrelevant.
- Convert the sentence to passive voice to reduce length.
- Replace 'who had been' with 'having been' in both clauses.
Correct answer: Break it into two sentences, moving background information to a separate sentence.
Long embedded relative clauses disrupt reading flow; separating background facts into a distinct sentence improves clarity and emphasizes the main action.
Question 5: Which of the following is the clearest way to express the concept of 'prior to the expiration of the applicable limitations period'?
- Before the statute of limitations runs out.
- Before the deadline of the applicable period.
- Before the limitations period expires. (Correct answer)
- Within the time allowed by the statute.
Correct answer: Before the limitations period expires.
'Before the limitations period expires' preserves necessary legal precision while eliminating redundant words like 'applicable' and 'prior to.'
Question 6: In argument writing, what is the risk of using 'clearly' or 'obviously' to introduce a point?
- These words signal that no evidence will be provided, weakening the argument. (Correct answer)
- These words are too informal for academic or legal writing.
- These words create a double negative when paired with negative sentences.
- These words make the sentence grammatically ambiguous.
Correct answer: These words signal that no evidence will be provided, weakening the argument.
Asserting something is 'clear' or 'obvious' substitutes a claim of self-evidence for actual reasoning, which undermines argumentative credibility.
Question 7: Which sentence structure best conveys a precise cause-and-effect relationship?
- The defendant was negligent; there were injuries.
- Due to the defendant's failure to maintain safe premises, three visitors sustained injuries. (Correct answer)
- Injuries occurred and the defendant had been negligent.
- The defendant's actions, which were negligent, caused some people to be hurt.
Correct answer: Due to the defendant's failure to maintain safe premises, three visitors sustained injuries.
This sentence explicitly links the specific cause (failure to maintain safe premises) to the precise effect (three visitors injured), satisfying legal clarity requirements.
LNAT Clarity and Precision in Writing 4
A statute reads: 'No vehicle shall enter the park.' A bicycle rider argues this does not apply to bicycles.
What drafting principle does this dispute illustrate?