LNAT Passage Comprehension and Deduction 4 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A passage states: 'Proportionality in punishment requires that the severity of the sentence match the gravity of the offense. A fine of $50 for murder and life imprisonment for theft would both violate proportionality.' What principle is illustrated?
- Punishments must deter future crimes
- The severity of punishment must correspond to the seriousness of the wrong (Correct answer)
- All crimes should carry the same sentence
- Judges should consider the offender's background
Correct answer: The severity of punishment must correspond to the seriousness of the wrong
Both examples — extreme leniency for a grave crime and extreme harshness for a minor one — illustrate departures from proportionality.
Question 2: Read: 'A law that reasonable people cannot understand cannot be obeyed. A law that cannot be obeyed is unjust. The new tax code is incomprehensible to most citizens.' What conclusion follows?
- The tax code should be simplified for clarity
- The new tax code is unjust (Correct answer)
- Citizens should hire accountants
- Incomprehensibility is unavoidable in complex law
Correct answer: The new tax code is unjust
Linking the premises: incomprehensible law → cannot be obeyed → unjust; the tax code is incomprehensible, so it is unjust by this chain.
Question 3: A passage argues: 'Anonymity enables free expression but also shields bad actors. Removing anonymity protects victims but chills speech.' Which framework best captures what this passage presents?
- A false dilemma with one clear solution
- A genuine trade-off between competing values (Correct answer)
- An argument for removing anonymity online
- Proof that free expression is overrated
Correct answer: A genuine trade-off between competing values
The passage acknowledges real benefits and real costs on both sides without resolving the tension, presenting a genuine values conflict.
Question 4: A text reads: 'Not every moral wrong is a legal wrong. Lying to a friend is immoral but generally not illegal.' What is the author establishing?
- Morality and law are completely unrelated
- The scope of law is narrower than the scope of morality (Correct answer)
- Lying should be criminalized
- Legal wrongs are always moral wrongs
Correct answer: The scope of law is narrower than the scope of morality
The example shows that legal prohibition is a subset of moral condemnation — law covers some moral wrongs but not all.
Question 5: A passage claims: 'Adversarial legal systems assume truth emerges from contested argument. Inquisitorial systems assume truth emerges from judicial investigation.' A critic argues both assumptions may be wrong. What would the critic most likely say?
- Neither system produces reliable truth in all cases (Correct answer)
- Adversarial systems are clearly superior
- Judges are always biased
- Truth is irrelevant to legal proceedings
Correct answer: Neither system produces reliable truth in all cases
Rejecting both systems' foundational assumptions implies that neither reliably delivers truth, leaving both open to empirical challenge.
Question 6: A passage reads: 'Retroactive laws punish people for acts that were legal when committed. This violates the rule of law because citizens cannot plan their conduct around unknown future rules.' What value does the author invoke?
- Efficiency of the legal system
- Legal certainty and the ability to rely on existing law (Correct answer)
- Judicial independence
- Democratic accountability of legislatures
Correct answer: Legal certainty and the ability to rely on existing law
The author's objection rests on legal certainty — the idea that law must be knowable in advance so people can conform their behavior to it.
Question 7: A text states: 'Corporate personhood grants companies legal rights originally designed for individuals. Critics argue this was never intended; defenders argue it enables commerce.' A student concludes: 'Therefore corporate personhood should be abolished.' Is this conclusion supported?
- Yes, because the critics' argument is stronger
- No, because the passage presents both sides without endorsing abolition (Correct answer)
- Yes, because commerce does not justify rights
- No, because defenders always win legal debates
Correct answer: No, because the passage presents both sides without endorsing abolition
The passage is descriptive and balanced; it does not provide premises sufficient to support the student's prescriptive conclusion.
LNAT Passage Comprehension and Deduction 4
A passage states: 'Proportionality in punishment requires that the severity of the sentence match the gravity of the offense.
A fine of $50 for murder and life imprisonment for theft would both violate proportionality.' What principle is illustrated?