LNAT Inference and Implied Meaning 5 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A passage states: 'The new environmental regulation applies to all businesses with more than 50 employees.' A sole trader employing 60 staff asks if the regulation applies to her. What can be inferred?
- The regulation does not apply because she is a sole trader.
- The regulation applies because her business exceeds 50 employees. (Correct answer)
- The regulation only applies to corporations, not sole traders.
- The employee threshold is irrelevant to the regulation's scope.
Correct answer: The regulation applies because her business exceeds 50 employees.
The stated criterion is employee count, not business structure, so a business with 60 employees falls within the regulation regardless of ownership type.
Question 2: A judge instructs a jury: 'You must not speculate beyond what the evidence shows.' A juror wants to consider what the defendant 'probably' intended based on their character. What does the instruction imply the juror should do?
- Infer intent from character evidence if it seems logical.
- Disregard inferences about intent not supported by evidence presented at trial. (Correct answer)
- Acquit the defendant to avoid speculation.
- Ask the judge for more evidence about the defendant's character.
Correct answer: Disregard inferences about intent not supported by evidence presented at trial.
The instruction implies jurors must confine their reasoning to admitted evidence, ruling out speculation about character not established by evidence.
Question 3: A passage argues: 'A law that is rarely enforced loses its deterrent effect.' A government keeps an unenforced law on the books. What is most strongly implied?
- The law still fully deters the prohibited behavior.
- The law's deterrent function has likely weakened due to lack of enforcement. (Correct answer)
- The government plans to repeal the law.
- Unenforced laws are automatically invalid.
Correct answer: The law's deterrent function has likely weakened due to lack of enforcement.
Applying the argument's principle, rare enforcement implies reduced deterrence, so keeping the law without enforcement undermines its stated purpose.
Question 4: An author writes: 'The fact that people disagree about ethics does not prove that ethics is merely subjective.' What is most strongly implied?
- There are no objective ethical truths.
- Disagreement is compatible with the existence of objective ethical standards. (Correct answer)
- Only unanimous agreement establishes ethical truth.
- The author believes all ethical views are equally valid.
Correct answer: Disagreement is compatible with the existence of objective ethical standards.
The author implies that disagreement about ethics is not sufficient evidence for moral relativism, as people can disagree about objective matters.
Question 5: A statute says: 'No vehicle shall be driven on the footpath.' A cyclist argues their bicycle is not a 'vehicle.' What does the dispute most strongly illustrate?
- Cyclists are legally permitted on footpaths.
- Statutory language can be ambiguous, requiring interpretation of the term 'vehicle.' (Correct answer)
- The statute was poorly drafted and should be repealed.
- Courts will always rule in favor of cyclists.
Correct answer: Statutory language can be ambiguous, requiring interpretation of the term 'vehicle.'
The dispute highlights that statutory terms may lack precise definitions, creating interpretive questions about whether particular cases fall within the law's scope.
Question 6: A passage states: 'Witnesses who have a financial interest in the outcome of a case are less credible.' A witness stands to inherit money if the defendant is convicted. What is most reasonably inferred?
- The witness's testimony should be disregarded entirely.
- The witness's financial interest is a reason to scrutinize their testimony more carefully. (Correct answer)
- Financial interest always indicates deliberate dishonesty.
- The witness must disclose their interest before testifying.
Correct answer: The witness's financial interest is a reason to scrutinize their testimony more carefully.
The principle implies reduced credibility warrants greater scrutiny, not automatic dismissal of the testimony.
Question 7: A passage argues: 'Mandatory minimum sentences remove judicial discretion, which is essential to achieving justice in individual cases.' What does this most strongly imply?
- All sentences should be decided by juries.
- Mandatory minimums may produce unjust outcomes in cases with unusual circumstances. (Correct answer)
- Judges are always better decision-makers than legislators.
- Long sentences are inherently unjust.
Correct answer: Mandatory minimums may produce unjust outcomes in cases with unusual circumstances.
If discretion is essential to justice in individual cases, then removing it through mandatory minimums implies some cases will be handled unjustly.
LNAT Inference and Implied Meaning 5
A passage states: 'The new environmental regulation applies to all businesses with more than 50 employees.' A sole trader employing 60 staff asks if the regulation applies to her.
What can be inferred?