LNAT Technical Skills & Application 5 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A legal essay argues: 'The right to silence should be abolished because guilty defendants exploit it.' Which critical flaw is most significant?
- The essay does not cite enough case law
- It ignores the risk that abolition would harm innocent defendants who are inarticulate or anxious (Correct answer)
- It focuses on defendants rather than victims
- The right to silence is constitutionally protected and cannot be changed
Correct answer: It ignores the risk that abolition would harm innocent defendants who are inarticulate or anxious
Focusing only on guilty defendants exploiting the right ignores the protective function it serves for innocent but vulnerable people.
Question 2: In statistical analysis, a result is described as 'statistically significant at p < 0.05.' This means:
- There is a 95% probability that the effect is real
- There is less than a 5% probability of observing this result if the null hypothesis were true (Correct answer)
- The effect size is large enough to be practically important
- The study will replicate 95% of the time
Correct answer: There is less than a 5% probability of observing this result if the null hypothesis were true
A p-value below 0.05 means there is less than a 5% chance of obtaining the observed result under the null hypothesis, not that the effect is definitely real.
Question 3: A barrister argues by analogy: 'In case X, the court held that silence in response to an accusation could constitute acceptance. My client similarly said nothing when accused of breach. Therefore he accepted the allegation.' For this analogy to hold, what must be true?
- The facts in case X must be identical in every detail
- The legally relevant features of case X must be sufficiently similar to the present case (Correct answer)
- Case X must have been decided by the Supreme Court
- The defendant must have been present in both cases
Correct answer: The legally relevant features of case X must be sufficiently similar to the present case
Legal analogy requires that the facts materially relevant to the legal rule are similar enough to justify applying the same outcome.
Question 4: A passage claims that 'democracy is failing because voter turnout has declined.' Which additional piece of evidence would most undermine this argument?
- Voter turnout has always fluctuated historically
- Politicians are more corrupt today than ever
- Low-turnout elections have produced stable, representative governments with high public approval (Correct answer)
- Young people are disengaged from politics
Correct answer: Low-turnout elections have produced stable, representative governments with high public approval
If low turnout still produces stable and representative outcomes, it undermines the link between declining turnout and democratic failure.
Question 5: The principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius ('expression of one excludes the other') means that in a statute listing specific items:
- The listed items must be interpreted broadly to include similar items
- Items not listed are presumed to be excluded from the statute's scope (Correct answer)
- The list is merely illustrative and not exhaustive
- Courts must refer to Parliamentary debates to identify omitted items
Correct answer: Items not listed are presumed to be excluded from the statute's scope
Expressio unius holds that the deliberate listing of specific items implies that unlisted items are intentionally excluded.
Question 6: An LNAT passage presents the following chain: 'Higher inequality leads to social unrest; social unrest undermines investment; reduced investment slows growth; slow growth increases inequality.' This reasoning structure is best called:
- A false dichotomy
- A circular argument (begging the question)
- A causal chain (slippery slope) (Correct answer)
- An inductive generalization
Correct answer: A causal chain (slippery slope)
The argument links a sequence of causally connected steps, forming a causal chain that, if unchecked, produces a self-reinforcing cycle.
Question 7: When assessing an argument's structure in the LNAT, distinguishing a 'conclusion' from an 'intermediate conclusion' matters because:
- Intermediate conclusions can never be questioned
- An intermediate conclusion functions as both a conclusion to one set of premises and a premise for the final conclusion (Correct answer)
- The final conclusion is always stated first in LNAT passages
- Intermediate conclusions are always implicit rather than stated
Correct answer: An intermediate conclusion functions as both a conclusion to one set of premises and a premise for the final conclusion
An intermediate conclusion is derived from earlier premises and then itself acts as a premise supporting the main conclusion, forming a multi-step argument.
LNAT Technical Skills & Application 5
A legal essay argues: 'The right to silence should be abolished because guilty defendants exploit it.' Which critical flaw is most significant?