LNAT Reading Comprehension 4 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A passage argues: 'Hate speech laws restrict free expression, but hate speech silences vulnerable groups by making public discourse hostile to them.' What type of argument structure does this passage use?
- A purely consequentialist argument based on the greatest good for the greatest number.
- A deontological argument based on absolute rights that cannot be overridden.
- A balancing argument that weighs competing values against each other. (Correct answer)
- An argument from precedent based on historical legal decisions.
Correct answer: A balancing argument that weighs competing values against each other.
The passage acknowledges a cost (restriction of expression) and a benefit (protecting vulnerable groups), which is the hallmark of a balancing or proportionality argument.
Question 2: A passage on judicial precedent states: 'Lower courts are bound by the decisions of higher courts in the same jurisdiction.' A student reads this and concludes that a UK High Court is bound by decisions of the Australian High Court. This conclusion is:
- Correct, because both courts operate within the common law tradition.
- Incorrect, because 'same jurisdiction' excludes foreign courts, however persuasive their authority. (Correct answer)
- Correct, because the Australian High Court is a superior court in the common law hierarchy.
- Incorrect only if the UK has a statutory provision overriding such a requirement.
Correct answer: Incorrect, because 'same jurisdiction' excludes foreign courts, however persuasive their authority.
The passage specifies 'same jurisdiction,' and Australia and the UK are separate jurisdictions, so Australian decisions are at most persuasive, never binding.
Question 3: In a passage criticizing plea bargaining, the author writes: 'An innocent defendant may rationally choose to plead guilty if the risk of a long sentence at trial outweighs the certainty of a shorter one.' What concern does this sentence most directly raise?
- Plea bargaining creates perverse incentives that may cause wrongful convictions of innocent people. (Correct answer)
- Prosecutors use plea bargaining to avoid the cost and uncertainty of trial.
- Defendants who plead guilty waive important constitutional rights.
- Plea bargaining is predominantly used in minor offenses rather than serious crimes.
Correct answer: Plea bargaining creates perverse incentives that may cause wrongful convictions of innocent people.
The passage highlights that rational self-interest can lead an innocent person to plead guilty, producing a conviction of someone who committed no crime.
Question 4: A passage states that strict liability offences 'require no proof of a guilty mind.' The author gives speeding as an example. Which of the following would be another appropriate example under this definition?
- Murder, because the prosecution must prove the defendant intended to kill.
- Fraud, because it requires proving the defendant knowingly made a false representation.
- Selling alcohol to a minor, even if the seller genuinely believed the buyer was of legal age. (Correct answer)
- Assault, because it requires proving the defendant intended to cause apprehension of harm.
Correct answer: Selling alcohol to a minor, even if the seller genuinely believed the buyer was of legal age.
Selling alcohol to a minor is a classic strict liability offence — the defendant's honest belief about age is irrelevant because no mental element is required.
Question 5: An author writes: 'Most people assume legal and moral obligations are the same, but this conflates two distinct categories.' Which of the following best illustrates the distinction the author is drawing?
- A law requires drivers to stop at red lights; morality also requires drivers to stop at red lights.
- A person has a moral obligation to help a drowning stranger but in many jurisdictions no legal duty to do so. (Correct answer)
- Contracts are legally binding and also create moral obligations between the parties.
- Both legal and moral systems prohibit murder, illustrating that they often overlap.
Correct answer: A person has a moral obligation to help a drowning stranger but in many jurisdictions no legal duty to do so.
The drowning stranger scenario shows a moral duty existing without a corresponding legal duty — the clearest illustration of the two categories diverging.
Question 6: A passage argues that international law is 'weak' because it lacks a central enforcement authority. A reader objects: 'States voluntarily comply with international law most of the time.' This objection is best understood as:
- Conceding the author's point that international law depends on voluntary compliance rather than coercion.
- Challenging the author's implicit assumption that law requires coercive enforcement to be effective. (Correct answer)
- Proving that international law is stronger than domestic law in most contexts.
- Arguing that enforcement authority is irrelevant to whether a legal system is legitimate.
Correct answer: Challenging the author's implicit assumption that law requires coercive enforcement to be effective.
The objection targets the unstated premise that effectiveness requires a coercive enforcer — high voluntary compliance suggests law can work without such a body.
Question 7: In a passage on constitutional interpretation, the author distinguishes 'originalism' (interpret according to founders' intent) from 'living constitutionalism' (interpret to reflect contemporary values). The author claims originalism is 'more objective.' Which objection would most directly undermine this claim?
- Living constitutionalism has been adopted by a majority of supreme courts worldwide.
- Determining the founders' original intent requires contested historical interpretation. (Correct answer)
- The constitution was originally drafted without input from women or enslaved people.
- Contemporary values are impossible to identify because they vary across social groups.
Correct answer: Determining the founders' original intent requires contested historical interpretation.
If recovering original intent itself requires contested historical interpretation, then originalism is not more objective than other approaches — it just shifts the subjectivity to historical inquiry.
LNAT Reading Comprehension 4
A passage argues: 'Hate speech laws restrict free expression, but hate speech silences vulnerable groups by making public discourse hostile to them.' What type of argument structure does this passage use?