LSAT Reading Comprehension: Science and Law Passages 5 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A passage on administrative law and scientific agencies states that courts reviewing agency scientific determinations apply a 'highly deferential arbitrary and capricious standard.' Which of the following best explains why courts apply this deferential standard?
- Courts believe that scientific questions are inherently unanswerable
- Agencies possess specialized technical expertise that generalist judges lack (Correct answer)
- The Constitution explicitly requires judicial deference to executive agency findings
- Scientific evidence is inadmissible in courts reviewing administrative decisions
Correct answer: Agencies possess specialized technical expertise that generalist judges lack
The rationale for deferring to agency scientific judgments is institutional competence—agencies employ specialists whose expertise courts cannot replicate.
Question 2: In an LSAT reading passage, an ecologist argues that habitat fragmentation reduces biodiversity by creating 'island effects' that limit species migration. A lawyer citing this passage in an environmental case would most directly use it to argue that:
- Development projects must be halted until a complete census of local species is conducted
- Road construction that fragments contiguous habitat may cause legally cognizable environmental harm (Correct answer)
- The Endangered Species Act should be amended to address habitat connectivity
- Land use regulation is the exclusive domain of state rather than federal law
Correct answer: Road construction that fragments contiguous habitat may cause legally cognizable environmental harm
The island-effect argument most directly supports a legal claim that habitat fragmentation causes harm—exactly the factual predicate a litigant would cite in an environmental case.
Question 3: A passage presents a study showing that jurisdictions with mandatory minimum sentencing have not experienced lower crime rates than jurisdictions without such laws. The author then notes that legislators who passed these laws cited deterrence as the primary justification. The author's purpose in juxtaposing these two points is most likely to:
- Argue that all mandatory minimum sentencing laws should be repealed immediately
- Question whether the empirical basis for mandatory minimums supports the deterrence rationale legislators invoked (Correct answer)
- Demonstrate that criminal deterrence is impossible to measure scientifically
- Suggest that crime rates are determined by factors entirely unrelated to sentencing policy
Correct answer: Question whether the empirical basis for mandatory minimums supports the deterrence rationale legislators invoked
By contrasting the empirical evidence with the stated legislative justification, the author invites scrutiny of whether the policy achieves its stated goal.
Question 4: A science passage describes the development of mRNA vaccine technology, noting that it had been researched for decades before COVID-19 created conditions for rapid deployment. This historical context most likely serves to:
- Argue that vaccine development was unnecessarily delayed by regulatory red tape
- Counter the perception that mRNA vaccines were developed recklessly quickly by showing the underlying science was mature (Correct answer)
- Demonstrate that private investment, not government funding, drove vaccine research
- Show that mRNA technology should have been deployed in earlier pandemics
Correct answer: Counter the perception that mRNA vaccines were developed recklessly quickly by showing the underlying science was mature
Providing the decades-long research history addresses the concern that speed of development reflected inadequate safety testing.
Question 5: An LSAT passage about the Frye standard and the Daubert standard for expert scientific testimony states that Frye requires evidence to be 'generally accepted' in the relevant scientific community. Which of the following is a recognized criticism of the Frye standard compared to Daubert?
- Frye allows testimony from witnesses who are not members of the relevant professional community
- Frye may exclude novel but well-validated scientific methods that have not yet achieved widespread acceptance (Correct answer)
- Frye requires courts to conduct their own independent scientific research before ruling on admissibility
- Frye gives judges too much discretion to evaluate the reliability of scientific methodology
Correct answer: Frye may exclude novel but well-validated scientific methods that have not yet achieved widespread acceptance
The classic Frye criticism is that the general-acceptance requirement can exclude cutting-edge, rigorously validated science that has simply not yet gained mainstream adoption.
Question 6: A passage on international environmental law discusses the concept of 'common but differentiated responsibilities,' which holds that all nations share responsibility for global environmental problems but that developed nations bear greater obligations due to historical emissions. A developing nation's negotiator would most likely invoke this principle to argue that:
- Developing nations should be exempt from all international environmental agreements
- Developed nations should provide financial and technological assistance to help developing nations meet emissions targets (Correct answer)
- Environmental harm caused by developing nations is not subject to international legal accountability
- The principle applies only to climate change and not to other forms of environmental degradation
Correct answer: Developed nations should provide financial and technological assistance to help developing nations meet emissions targets
Common but differentiated responsibilities is most often invoked to justify developed-nation obligations to support developing countries through finance and technology transfer.
Question 7: A passage describes a scientist who publishes findings contradicting a widely held theory, and a legal scholar who argues for overturning a long-standing precedent. The author draws a parallel between these figures in order to:
- Argue that both science and law would benefit from abolishing appeals to authority
- Illustrate that both disciplines must balance respect for established consensus with openness to revision based on new evidence or arguments (Correct answer)
- Suggest that scientific theories and legal precedents should be overturned with equal frequency
- Demonstrate that neither science nor law has produced reliable knowledge
Correct answer: Illustrate that both disciplines must balance respect for established consensus with openness to revision based on new evidence or arguments
The parallel highlights a structural similarity: both disciplines rely on established frameworks while preserving mechanisms for revision when evidence or argument warrants it.
LSAT Reading Comprehension: Science and Law Passages 5
A passage on administrative law and scientific agencies states that courts reviewing agency scientific determinations apply a 'highly deferential arbitrary and capricious standard.' Which of the following best explains why courts apply this deferential standard?