LNAT Passage Comprehension and Deduction 5

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?

Accepted Answer

The rationale for the hearsay rule is applied inconsistently

Answer

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?

Accepted Answer

The proportionality requirement is the correct standard for self-defense

Answer

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?

Accepted Answer

Elected legitimacy versus rights-based constraints on majority power

Answer

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?

Accepted Answer

Whether moral responsibility requires the ability to have acted differently

Answer

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?

Accepted Answer

The context of the whole statute illuminates the meaning of individual parts

Answer

The principle is that statutory interpretation requires reading provisions in their legislative context rather than in isolation.

LNAT - Law National Aptitude Test Practice Test

LNAT - Law National Aptitude Test Practice Test

LNAT Passage Comprehension and Deduction 5