LNAT Passage Comprehension and Deduction 5 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A passage reads: 'Hearsay is excluded from evidence because the original speaker cannot be cross-examined. Yet written contracts, which cannot be cross-examined either, are routinely admitted.' What tension does this reveal?
- Written contracts should be excluded from evidence
- The rationale for the hearsay rule is applied inconsistently (Correct answer)
- Hearsay is always unreliable
- Cross-examination is the best truth-finding tool
Correct answer: The rationale for the hearsay rule is applied inconsistently
If the inability to cross-examine is the ground for excluding hearsay, that same rationale should arguably exclude written documents, revealing an inconsistency.
Question 2: A text argues: 'Self-defense is justified only when force is necessary and proportionate. Using a firearm to repel a shove is disproportionate. Therefore it is not justified self-defense.' What assumption does this argument require?
- A shove can never cause serious injury
- A shove is not a threat requiring any defensive force
- The proportionality requirement is the correct standard for self-defense (Correct answer)
- Firearms are always lethal
Correct answer: The proportionality requirement is the correct standard for self-defense
The argument only works if proportionality is accepted as the correct standard; without that premise, the conclusion does not follow.
Question 3: A passage states: 'Judicial review allows unelected judges to strike down democratically passed laws. Some call this counter-majoritarian. Others say it protects minorities from majority tyranny.' What is the core democratic tension identified?
- Judges are insufficiently trained in politics
- Elected legitimacy versus rights-based constraints on majority power (Correct answer)
- Courts act too slowly to be effective
- Minority groups should have more representatives
Correct answer: Elected legitimacy versus rights-based constraints on majority power
The tension is between democratic majoritarianism (elected lawmakers) and constitutionalism (unelected judges protecting rights).
Question 4: A passage reads: 'The defendant knew the act was wrong but claims irresistible impulse. If the impulse was truly irresistible, she could not have done otherwise. Can we punish someone for what they could not avoid?' What philosophical problem is raised?
- Whether defendants should receive legal advice
- Whether moral responsibility requires the ability to have acted differently (Correct answer)
- Whether impulse disorders are medical conditions
- Whether juries can assess mental states accurately
Correct answer: Whether moral responsibility requires the ability to have acted differently
The passage invokes the philosophical requirement of alternative possibilities — that punishment is unjust if the person genuinely could not have done otherwise.
Question 5: A text states: 'A statute must be read as a whole. A provision that appears ambiguous in isolation may be clear when read alongside the rest of the act.' What interpretive principle does this express?
- Ambiguous statutes should be resolved in favor of the defendant
- The context of the whole statute illuminates the meaning of individual parts (Correct answer)
- Parliamentary debates are the best guide to statutory meaning
- Judges should rewrite ambiguous provisions
Correct answer: The context of the whole statute illuminates the meaning of individual parts
The principle is that statutory interpretation requires reading provisions in their legislative context rather than in isolation.
Question 6: A passage claims: 'Plea bargaining resolves 90% of criminal cases. Without it, courts would collapse. Yet it pressures defendants to waive trial rights.' A reformer concludes the system must be abolished. Which response best challenges this conclusion?
- Plea bargaining is perfectly fair to defendants
- Abolition might collapse the court system, so reform rather than abolition may be preferable (Correct answer)
- Defendants who plead guilty are always guilty
- The 90% statistic is unreliable
Correct answer: Abolition might collapse the court system, so reform rather than abolition may be preferable
The passage itself notes that courts depend on plea bargaining, so abolition carries systemic risks that the reformer's conclusion ignores.
Question 7: A passage reads: 'Custom can become law through long, consistent practice accepted as legally binding (opinio juris). A state that objects persistently to an emerging custom is not bound by it.' What does this imply about customary international law?
- All states are automatically bound by any widely followed practice
- Persistent objection during a custom's formation can exempt a state from it (Correct answer)
- Customary law is equivalent to treaty law
- States can reject any international norm they dislike at any time
Correct answer: Persistent objection during a custom's formation can exempt a state from it
The persistent objector doctrine, as described, means timely and consistent objection during formation can prevent a custom from binding that state.
LNAT Passage Comprehension and Deduction 5
A passage reads: 'Hearsay is excluded from evidence because the original speaker cannot be cross-examined.
Yet written contracts, which cannot be cross-examined either, are routinely admitted.' What tension does this reveal?