LSAT Reading Comprehension: Science and Law Passages 4 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A passage about epidemiology and tort law discusses causation standards. The author notes that courts generally require proof that a defendant's conduct 'more likely than not' caused harm, while epidemiologists speak in terms of relative risk ratios. Which of the following best captures the tension the author identifies?
- Legal standards demand certainty whereas epidemiology is inherently probabilistic, creating a mismatch in how causation is established (Correct answer)
- Epidemiologists and lawyers define 'risk' using identical methodologies but different vocabularies
- Courts should adopt relative risk ratios as the exclusive measure of legal causation
- Epidemiological studies are inadmissible because they do not identify individual plaintiffs
Correct answer: Legal standards demand certainty whereas epidemiology is inherently probabilistic, creating a mismatch in how causation is established
The core tension is that legal causation requires a binary determination (more likely than not) while epidemiology produces probabilistic group-level data, making translation between the two disciplines imperfect.
Question 2: A passage describes how the Clean Air Act directs the EPA to set air quality standards 'requisite to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety.' The author argues this language grants the EPA broad discretion. Which of the following, if true, would most support this interpretation?
- Congress rejected proposed amendments that would have required cost-benefit analysis in standard-setting (Correct answer)
- The EPA has historically set standards stricter than those recommended by the scientific community
- Several states have adopted air quality standards that exceed federal minimums
- The statute was enacted in 1970 before modern risk assessment methodologies existed
Correct answer: Congress rejected proposed amendments that would have required cost-benefit analysis in standard-setting
Congress's rejection of cost-benefit requirements shows it deliberately left EPA unconstrained by economic considerations, supporting broad health-protective discretion.
Question 3: A comparative passage juxtaposes a biologist's account of CRISPR gene editing with a bioethicist's analysis of regulatory frameworks. The biologist would most likely respond to the bioethicist's call for a moratorium on germline editing by arguing that:
- Regulatory frameworks are unnecessary because scientists are capable of self-policing
- A moratorium could impede beneficial research without meaningfully addressing the safety concerns it aims to prevent (Correct answer)
- The bioethicist lacks the scientific credentials to evaluate gene-editing risks
- International agreements already provide sufficient oversight of germline research
Correct answer: A moratorium could impede beneficial research without meaningfully addressing the safety concerns it aims to prevent
Scientists typically argue that blanket moratoriums sacrifice beneficial applications without proportionate safety gains, especially when alternative oversight mechanisms exist.
Question 4: An LSAT passage about forensic evidence states that bite-mark analysis 'lacks the empirical foundation required for scientific testimony under Daubert.' The Daubert standard, as implied by the passage, requires that scientific evidence:
- Be endorsed by the relevant professional association before admission
- Be based on methodology that has been tested and has a known error rate (Correct answer)
- Have been used in at least five prior court cases without reversal
- Be presented by a witness holding a doctoral degree in the relevant field
Correct answer: Be based on methodology that has been tested and has a known error rate
The Daubert standard requires that expert scientific testimony be based on reliable, testable methodology with a known or knowable error rate.
Question 5: A science passage describes two competing hypotheses about the mass extinction at the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary. The author states that 'neither hypothesis fully accounts for the global distribution of extinction patterns.' This statement functions primarily to:
- Dismiss both hypotheses as scientifically worthless
- Indicate that the question remains open and that further evidence is needed (Correct answer)
- Argue that extinction events cannot be explained by scientific methods
- Conclude that the asteroid impact hypothesis is more plausible than volcanic activity
Correct answer: Indicate that the question remains open and that further evidence is needed
Noting that neither hypothesis fully explains the evidence signals that the scientific debate is unresolved and invites further investigation.
Question 6: In a passage about privacy law and genomic data, the author argues that existing privacy frameworks are inadequate because genomic information is 'simultaneously personal and familial.' This phrase most likely means that:
- Genomic data is valuable both to individuals and to medical research institutions
- An individual's genetic information also reveals information about biological relatives who have not consented to disclosure (Correct answer)
- Courts have held that families, not individuals, own genetic information
- The privacy of genomic data depends on whether it is stored personally or shared with family
Correct answer: An individual's genetic information also reveals information about biological relatives who have not consented to disclosure
Because DNA is inherited and shared among relatives, disclosing one person's genomic data inherently reveals information about non-consenting family members.
Question 7: A passage about the precautionary principle in environmental law states that under this principle, 'the absence of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.' A critic of this principle would most likely argue that it:
- Requires an impossibly high level of scientific proof before any regulation can occur
- Could justify regulatory action based on speculative harms, imposing costs without demonstrated benefits (Correct answer)
- Applies only to irreversible harms such as species extinction, not to recoverable damage
- Was developed exclusively for international law and has no application in domestic regulatory contexts
Correct answer: Could justify regulatory action based on speculative harms, imposing costs without demonstrated benefits
The standard critique of the precautionary principle is that its low evidentiary threshold could support regulation of speculative risks, imposing real economic costs without clear evidence of harm.
LSAT Reading Comprehension: Science and Law Passages 4
A passage about epidemiology and tort law discusses causation standards.
The author notes that courts generally require proof that a defendant's conduct 'more likely than not' caused harm, while epidemiologists speak in terms of relative risk ratios.
Which of the following best captures the tension the author identifies?