LNAT Distinguishing Fact and Opinion 5 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A passage reads: 'The defendant has three prior convictions, suggesting she is unlikely to reform.' Which part is opinion?
- 'The defendant has three prior convictions' — records can be falsified
- 'suggesting she is unlikely to reform' — this is a predictive value judgment (Correct answer)
- Both parts are opinion because they concern character
- Neither part is opinion because both are legally relevant
Correct answer: 'suggesting she is unlikely to reform' — this is a predictive value judgment
The prior convictions are verifiable facts, but the inference about future reform is a predictive opinion that goes beyond what the record can establish.
Question 2: An advocate writes: 'The government's failure to act on knife crime is a national disgrace.' This statement contains:
- Two facts: inaction and national disgrace
- One fact (inaction) embedded in an evaluative opinion ('national disgrace') (Correct answer)
- One opinion (inaction) and one fact (disgrace)
- No factual content at all
Correct answer: One fact (inaction) embedded in an evaluative opinion ('national disgrace')
Whether the government acted or failed to act may be a verifiable fact, but 'national disgrace' is purely evaluative, making the overall statement an opinion.
Question 3: Which of the following statements about the LNAT is a fact?
- The LNAT is the best way to assess legal aptitude
- The LNAT is an unfair test that disadvantages state school students
- The LNAT is required by several UK law schools as part of their admissions process (Correct answer)
- The LNAT should be abolished because it is unnecessarily stressful
Correct answer: The LNAT is required by several UK law schools as part of their admissions process
The requirement to sit the LNAT for admission to certain law schools is a verifiable institutional policy, unlike the evaluative claims in the other options.
Question 4: A passage argues: 'While some scholars claim the law is neutral, it inevitably reflects the interests of those in power.' The phrase 'inevitably reflects' signals:
- A factual claim backed by sociological data
- An opinion presented with certainty by the author (Correct answer)
- A hypothesis the author will test in the passage
- A concession to the opposing view
Correct answer: An opinion presented with certainty by the author
'Inevitably' is an absolute claim that goes beyond what evidence can establish, signaling that the author is asserting a strongly held opinion as though it were certain.
Question 5: In assessing LNAT passages, distinguishing fact from opinion matters primarily because:
- Facts are always more persuasive than opinions
- Evaluating the strength of an argument requires knowing which claims require evidence and which reflect the author's perspective (Correct answer)
- Opinions should be ignored when answering comprehension questions
- Facts can never be used to support an argument
Correct answer: Evaluating the strength of an argument requires knowing which claims require evidence and which reflect the author's perspective
Knowing whether a claim is factual or opinionated allows the reader to assess whether adequate evidence has been provided and to evaluate the argument's logical strength.
Question 6: A passage states: 'Despite public outrage, the court's decision was legally correct.' The phrase 'legally correct' is best classified as:
- Pure fact, because legal correctness has a precise definition
- Opinion, because legal correctness is a judgment about whether law was properly applied (Correct answer)
- Fact, because courts cannot be wrong by definition
- Opinion only if the author is not a lawyer
Correct answer: Opinion, because legal correctness is a judgment about whether law was properly applied
Whether a decision is 'legally correct' involves interpretation of statutes and precedent — a judgment that legal experts can and do disagree about.
Question 7: An LNAT passage presents the following: 'Parliament enacted the Equality Act 2010. This was the right thing to do.' How should a careful reader classify these two sentences?
- Both facts, because both describe parliamentary actions
- Both opinions, because both concern political decisions
- First is fact (verifiable legislative event); second is opinion (moral judgment) (Correct answer)
- First is opinion (could be disputed); second is fact (widely agreed)
Correct answer: First is fact (verifiable legislative event); second is opinion (moral judgment)
The enactment of legislation is a verifiable historical fact, while whether Parliament 'did the right thing' is a moral judgment and therefore an opinion.
LNAT Distinguishing Fact and Opinion 5
A passage reads: 'The defendant has three prior convictions, suggesting she is unlikely to reform.' Which part is opinion?