LNAT Verbal Reasoning 5 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A passage argues: 'Because a law has existed for centuries, it should not be changed.' This argument relies on which flawed assumption?
- Old laws are always more carefully drafted than new ones.
- Longevity is a reliable indicator of a law's continued justness and relevance. (Correct answer)
- Parliamentary time is too limited to review old legislation.
- Legal traditions differ significantly between countries.
Correct answer: Longevity is a reliable indicator of a law's continued justness and relevance.
The argument appeals to tradition, assuming age confers validity — but a law can be ancient and still unjust or outdated.
Question 2: A passage distinguishes 'descriptive' from 'normative' claims. Which of the following is a normative claim?
- Incarceration rates in the US are higher than in Western Europe.
- Courts should prioritize rehabilitation over punishment. (Correct answer)
- Most criminal trials in England are heard in Magistrates' Courts.
- The age of criminal responsibility varies by jurisdiction.
Correct answer: Courts should prioritize rehabilitation over punishment.
Normative claims make value judgments about what ought to be, whereas descriptive claims state facts about what is.
Question 3: Which best describes the relationship between 'correlation' and 'causation'?
- If two events correlate, one must cause the other.
- Correlation means two variables move together but does not establish that one causes the other. (Correct answer)
- Causation can only be proved through statistical correlation studies.
- Correlation and causation are essentially the same concept in legal reasoning.
Correct answer: Correlation means two variables move together but does not establish that one causes the other.
Correlation shows an association between variables but does not prove that one event produces the other — a third factor may explain both.
Question 4: An author states: 'This policy has never been tried before, so it will not work.' What is wrong with this reasoning?
- It commits a false dichotomy between old and new policies.
- It assumes novelty implies failure, without evidence. (Correct answer)
- It relies on expert authority to reject the policy.
- It misrepresents the policy by ignoring its benefits.
Correct answer: It assumes novelty implies failure, without evidence.
The argument assumes that because something has not been done before, it must fail — an unjustified leap with no supporting evidence.
Question 5: Which best captures the meaning of 'inviolable' as used in human rights discourse?
- A right that can be limited under exceptional circumstances.
- A right that is incapable of being violated or overridden under any conditions. (Correct answer)
- A right that applies only within national borders.
- A right that requires active enforcement by the state.
Correct answer: A right that is incapable of being violated or overridden under any conditions.
'Inviolable' means something that must never be broken or infringed upon — in rights discourse, it denotes absolute protections.
Question 6: A passage presents two sides of the assisted dying debate. The author concludes: 'Therefore, the evidence does not decisively favor either position.' This conclusion is an example of:
- Begging the question
- A balanced, agnostic evaluation of the evidence (Correct answer)
- A concession that the author's original argument failed
- An appeal to popular opinion
Correct answer: A balanced, agnostic evaluation of the evidence
The author is making an epistemically humble judgment that the evidence is genuinely inconclusive rather than favoring one side.
Question 7: In a LNAT passage, you are told: 'All contracts require consideration. This agreement lacks consideration.' What can be logically concluded?
- This agreement may still be a valid contract if other conditions are met.
- This agreement is not a valid contract. (Correct answer)
- Consideration is not always necessary for legal agreements.
- This agreement requires further judicial review to determine validity.
Correct answer: This agreement is not a valid contract.
Using modus tollens: if all valid contracts require consideration and this agreement lacks it, then it cannot be a valid contract.
LNAT Verbal Reasoning 5
A passage argues: 'Because a law has existed for centuries, it should not be changed.' This argument relies on which flawed assumption?