LNAT Passage Comprehension and Deduction 3 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A passage reads: 'Wealth correlates strongly with legal outcomes. This does not prove causation, but it does demand explanation.' What is the author's implicit suggestion?
- The legal system is perfectly fair
- Correlation studies are meaningless
- The correlation warrants investigating whether wealth causes better outcomes (Correct answer)
- Wealthy defendants are always acquitted
Correct answer: The correlation warrants investigating whether wealth causes better outcomes
The author stops short of claiming causation but argues the correlation is significant enough to require a systematic explanation.
Question 2: A text argues: 'Consent cannot be given under duress. Employment relationships involve inherent power imbalances. Therefore, employees cannot truly consent to workplace policies.' What is the weakest link in this argument?
- The definition of duress
- Whether all power imbalances constitute duress (Correct answer)
- Whether employees have legal rights
- The meaning of 'workplace policies'
Correct answer: Whether all power imbalances constitute duress
The argument leaps from 'power imbalance' to 'duress' without justifying that all power differentials constitute the kind of coercion that invalidates consent.
Question 3: A passage states: 'Strict liability holds defendants responsible regardless of intent. Critics argue this is unjust. Supporters respond that it incentivizes caution in high-risk industries.' Which response best characterizes the supporters' position?
- Intent is irrelevant to all legal questions
- Consequentialist: the outcome (safer industry) justifies the rule (Correct answer)
- Defendants in strict liability cases are always negligent
- Critics of strict liability misunderstand the law
Correct answer: Consequentialist: the outcome (safer industry) justifies the rule
Supporters justify strict liability by its deterrent effect and safety outcomes, a consequentialist rather than retributive rationale.
Question 4: Read: 'Only those with standing may bring a claim. Standing requires a direct, personal injury. A citizen outraged by government waste has no direct injury.' What follows?
- The citizen can sue on behalf of all taxpayers
- The citizen lacks standing to bring a claim (Correct answer)
- Government waste is not actionable by anyone
- Outrage is a recognized form of injury
Correct answer: The citizen lacks standing to bring a claim
Applying the stated rule — standing requires direct personal injury — the citizen with only generalized outrage does not qualify.
Question 5: A passage claims: 'International law depends on state consent and lacks a global enforcer. Therefore it is not truly law.' An objector says: 'Domestic law also relies on consent — through the social contract.' What does the objector attempt to show?
- International law needs no reform
- The criterion the passage uses to dismiss international law also applies to domestic law (Correct answer)
- Consent is irrelevant to legal validity
- The social contract is a myth
Correct answer: The criterion the passage uses to dismiss international law also applies to domestic law
The objector uses tu quoque logic: if consent-dependence disqualifies international law, the same reasoning undermines domestic law too.
Question 6: A text reads: 'Eyewitness testimony is the most persuasive evidence to jurors but among the least reliable.' What tension does this identify?
- Jurors are poorly educated about science
- High persuasiveness combined with low reliability creates a risk of wrongful conviction (Correct answer)
- Eyewitness accounts should be banned from trials
- Reliability and persuasiveness always align
Correct answer: High persuasiveness combined with low reliability creates a risk of wrongful conviction
The passage highlights a dangerous mismatch: the evidence type jurors trust most is the type most likely to be wrong.
Question 7: A passage argues: 'Precedent ensures consistency, but it also entrenches past errors. A court that cannot depart from precedent cannot correct its own mistakes.' What does the author imply about the ideal legal system?
- Precedent should be abolished entirely
- Courts should have some mechanism to depart from erroneous precedent (Correct answer)
- Past decisions are always correct
- Consistency is more important than accuracy
Correct answer: Courts should have some mechanism to depart from erroneous precedent
The author identifies entrenchment of error as a cost of rigid precedent, implying a system should allow correction of past mistakes.
LNAT Passage Comprehension and Deduction 3
A passage reads: 'Wealth correlates strongly with legal outcomes.
This does not prove causation, but it does demand explanation.' What is the author's implicit suggestion?