LNAT MCQ 3 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A passage argues that mandatory sentencing removes judicial discretion and leads to unjust outcomes. Which of the following, if true, would most WEAKEN this argument?
- Judges sometimes impose inconsistent sentences for identical crimes (Correct answer)
- Mandatory sentences are unpopular with defence attorneys
- Some mandatory sentences are longer than average voluntary sentences
- Legal scholars disagree about the purpose of punishment
Correct answer: Judges sometimes impose inconsistent sentences for identical crimes
If judicial discretion itself produces inconsistent and potentially unjust outcomes, limiting it through mandatory sentencing could improve consistency.
Question 2: Which statement about the LNAT is accurate?
- It tests knowledge of specific legal cases and statutes
- Section B requires candidates to write two essays
- It is a standardised test designed to assess aptitude, not legal knowledge (Correct answer)
- Scores from previous years can be carried forward
Correct answer: It is a standardised test designed to assess aptitude, not legal knowledge
The LNAT explicitly tests verbal reasoning aptitude, not prior knowledge of law.
Question 3: An argument uses the phrase 'studies show' without citing specific research. This weakens the argument because it:
- Makes the claim too specific to evaluate
- Relies on an unverifiable appeal to unnamed authority (Correct answer)
- Uses circular reasoning
- Commits the ad hominem fallacy
Correct answer: Relies on an unverifiable appeal to unnamed authority
Vague references to unnamed studies cannot be verified or scrutinised, weakening the evidential basis.
Question 4: A passage states that freedom of speech should be unrestricted. An implicit assumption underlying this view is most likely that:
- All speech causes measurable harm
- Individuals can distinguish valuable speech from harmful speech (Correct answer)
- Governments are inherently corrupt
- Legal systems are incapable of reform
Correct answer: Individuals can distinguish valuable speech from harmful speech
Unrestricted speech only functions well if people can exercise judgment about what to accept or reject.
Question 5: A defendant is charged with theft. The prosecution presents evidence that the defendant was near the crime scene. This evidence is best classified as:
- Conclusive proof of guilt
- Circumstantial evidence (Correct answer)
- Direct evidence of intent
- Hearsay evidence
Correct answer: Circumstantial evidence
Proximity to a crime scene requires inference to connect it to guilt, making it circumstantial rather than direct.
Question 6: An author writes: 'Most experts agree that X is true, therefore X must be true.' This is an example of:
- A sound inductive argument
- An appeal to authority (argumentum ad verecundiam) (Correct answer)
- A valid deductive syllogism
- An argument from analogy
Correct answer: An appeal to authority (argumentum ad verecundiam)
Citing expert consensus as proof commits an appeal to authority, which is fallacious when experts can be wrong.
Question 7: In a comprehension passage, the author's 'tone' is best identified by examining:
- Only the first and last sentences of the passage
- Word choice, sentence structure, and rhetorical devices throughout (Correct answer)
- The publication in which the passage appeared
- The length of the paragraphs
Correct answer: Word choice, sentence structure, and rhetorical devices throughout
Tone is conveyed through language choices and rhetorical patterns embedded throughout the text.
LNAT MCQ 3
A passage argues that mandatory sentencing removes judicial discretion and leads to unjust outcomes.
Which of the following, if true, would most WEAKEN this argument?