Q16 - Judge: The defendant admits noncompliance

[minhtientm249]

Could anyone please explain me why it is C? I know that the correct answer choice must differentiate national code and local code. But how C, by limiting the scope of local code helps justify the judge's reasoning? I picked D since it ruled out one reason why being ignorance could be excused in one case and not the other.



Thank you.

[lukesand88]

Here, the core is something like this:

p1: the defendant argues that he is confused between national or local building codes so that he should not suffer the penalties
p2: The excuse might be acceptable if he was charged with local codes
p3: but he is charged with noncompliance with national codes
C: so his excuse is unacceptable

the correct answer would ensure that the conclusion necessarily follows. You are right to think that the correct answer will differential national codes and local codes. In this case, it would explain why is it that noncompliance with national codes cannot be excused by ignorance whereas noncompliance with local codes can be.

D says that "ignorance of the difference between two codes is not an adequate excuse for noncompliance" - but this doesnt explain why noncompliance with local codes can be excused by the ignorance.

C plugs the gap: if any behavior required by national codes is also required by local codes, then even if local codes do not apply, the defendant would still be subject to restrictions from national codes. So the ignorance does not excuse the defendant.

your reason for choosing D might mean that you were confused between an assumption-depends question and a justify question. In the former, the correct answer will eliminate one particular gap in the reasoning, whereas in the latter, you must choose an answer that eliminates all gaps in the reasoning.

Think about a leaky boat with many holes: in assumption-depends questions, you are asked to plug one particular hole, but that doesn't mean that the boat won't have any other leaks and the conclusion may still not necessarily follow. But in justify questions, you are asked to plug all the holes on a boat at once so the boat won't have any leaks - perhaps dip it in tar. then the conclusion necessarily follows. This is why you would generally look for an answer that has a lower burden of proof for assumption questions and a higher burden of proof for justify questions.

In this case, D only spells out the assumption that ignorance by itself is not an adequate reason for noncompliance, and only when the defendant is charged with noncompliance with local codes can ignorance be possibly sufficient. So it only plugs one gap in the reason.
However, if this question asked "what assumption does the argument depend on?" then D would possibly be correct. C would be incorrect because you dont need to assume that much for the argument to hold.

[nbayar1212]

I have a different take on this question.

I think the first thing to notice is that you actually need to justify two claims:
1) if he was charged with noncompliance with local codes, his excuse might be sufficient to get him out of trouble AND
2) it's ok to charge him with violating national codes.

D is problematic because it only justifies the second part of the conclusion i.e. that we can charge him with violating national codes but doesn't leave ignorance as possibly being an excuse if he was being charged with violating local codes.

C on the other hand, allows for him to have an excuse if he was being charged with violating local codes because he could say "I was following all the national codes but I didn't know that I should also be following this other set of codes" AND it allows the judge to still reject his claims about not knowing which codes to follow because by definition, if he is charged with not following national codes then he is also not following local codes so he could technically be charged for either because he satisfies neither!

[mselvaratnam]

Answer C doesn't limit the scope of local laws, if anything it expands them. Think about this way:

Defendant: I admit that I broke the national code, but I shouldn't be penalized because I wasn't sure if the building was under national codes or local codes.

The only way this argument would work is if one of those two groups included codes that weren't included in the other. Essentially, that the national code has some rules that are absent from the local codes.

But if that turns out to be false, as answer C makes it by including all national code behavior in local codes, then the argument falls. Think about it. The defendant broke a national code rule. It's obviously wrong under the national code, and if all the national code rules are included in the local codes, then it's wrong under the local codes as well.


Now, the other bit is that the Judge says the argument might have worked if he'd been charged with noncompliance under local codes. Essentially, answer C gives the local code potential to have some rules that aren't in the national code.

[ohthatpatrick]

Great explanations so far, everyone.

I just want to clarify something about (D): it doesn't actually apply to the defendant.

Nowhere is the defendant saying that he is "ignorant of the difference between the two codes". Instead, the defendant is saying that he is "ignorant whether national or local codes apply to his area".

His ignorance isn't about what the codes actually say, just which one applies to the area where he's building.

Since (D) does not actually refer to the defendant, it's irrelevant.

(A) goes the wrong direction. If local codes and nat'l codes have nothing in common, then the defendant's excuse makes more sense ... (i.e. should he follow THIS code or the other, completely different code?)

(B) does the opposite of (C). (B) makes local codes a subset of national codes.

(E) sounds like a weaker form of (A). It still goes in the wrong direction. Pointing out the lack of overlap between the two codes helps the defendant's argument, not the judge's.

Let us know if any questions remain.

[ericha3535]

I just have a quick question about this.

I know what C is trying to say but it still bothers me.

I know C sort of implies that National code is the subset of local code, which is the "core reason" why C has to be the right one.

But it could be the case that where C is interpreted as "local and national codes cover the same thing."

Like for example, national code requires A B C which then says that local code requires A B and C.

Isn't this also compatible with C?

If so, then this may not justify the reasoning because the judge says "it may be acceptable... charged with noncompliance with local code."

What am I missing? Please let me know!

[mydota]

Could anyone please explain me why it is C? I know that the correct answer choice must differentiate national code and local code. But how C, by limiting the scope of local code helps justify the judge's reasoning? I picked D since it ruled out one reason why being ignorance could be excused in one case and not the other.

The question here is that the defendant admitted noncompliance with national building code. Thus, in C, it says that every requirement in national building code is also in the local codes, which means that this guy admitted noncompliance with national building code is automatically admitted noncompliance to local code. Therefore, the fact that he doesn't know which one applies here doesn't work because any noncompliance with national codes is also noncompliance with local codes.

On the other hand, if he violated local codes, he might get away by saying that he did not know which one applies because since national codes is a subset of local codes, some local codes might not be in national codes, and as a result, his ignorance which one applies may be acceptable.

[kjsmit02]

What I'm still unable to understand is that if (C): Natl. req. ------> Local req.; then isn't the premise "This excuse might be acceptable had he been charged with noncompliance with local codes" untrue? C means that his excuse could never be valid for local laws, as even those laws would follow national rules. In this case, the premise would be untrue?

[jasonleb1]

What I'm still unable to understand is that if (C): Natl. req. ------> Local req.; then isn't the premise "This excuse might be acceptable had he been charged with noncompliance with local codes" untrue? C means that his excuse could never be valid for local laws, as even those laws would follow national rules. In this case, the premise would be untrue?

This is exactly what I'm confused about as well.

I realized that there can be local codes not present in the national codes, but C says that if something violates a national code, it also violates a local code. So violation of a national code must also violate a local code and therefore cannot be excused in a local court for the same reason it can't be excused in a national court.

That's the reason I went with E. He can simultaneously comply with the local code - which the judge allows for - while violating the the national code.

I've been going over this question for hours and still can't see it any other way.

[AMP]

I realized that there can be local codes not present in the national codes, but C says that if something violates a national code, it also violates a local code. So violation of a national code must also violate a local code and therefore cannot be excused in a local court for the same reason it can't be excused in a national court.

To my understanding of this:

You’re correct that C means his noncompliance of national codes would also violate local codes, which is why his “excuse is unacceptable” because it violates both codes.

The part in the premise where it talks about how “the excuse might be acceptable had he been charged with noncompliance with local codes” are the local codes that are not present in the national codes. That’s why it might be acceptable because it may be something specific to local codes only.

I think you’re thinking that the stimulus says noncompliance of national code with be ok at a local level (which is probably where your confusion comes from), but the statement is talking about how noncompliance with a local code might be acceptable.

Hope that helps. Took me such a long time with this one too.

[jackiefielding]

I got this question wrong initially, then when I went through it and thought of it with a real-life example, it made more sense to me than trying to put things into categories or conditional language. Perhaps my example will help others!

-National law: You're not allowed to murder someone anywhere in the United States.
-Local law: You're not allowed to purchase spray paint in the city of Chicago.

-Defendant: "I wasn't sure if I was in Chicago, I thought maybe I was already across the border into Oak Park, so I bought spray paint--whoops!"
-Judge: "Yeah, I can see that, the borders are a little blurry. This rule applies in instances when you are in Chicago, but not when you are in Oak Park. This excuse is acceptable."

-Defendant: "I wasn't sure what rules applied, I didn't know if I was in Chicago or Oak Park... so I murdered someone. Whoops!"
-Judge: "WHAT?! Who cares if you're in Chicago or Oak Park, you're not allowed to murder someone anywhere in the US, and obviously, Chicago and Oak Park are within the US! Any national rule must be honored in local jurisdictions. This rule always applies, so there is no acceptable excuse for you to be confused about if this rule applied to you."

[b.lin.22.13]

One of the (incorrect) answer choices is still bothering me. B states "local codes may be less strict, but not more strict, than national codes" so therefore the defendant's excuse could be accepted under local codes, but not national codes because national codes are more strict. It seems very similar to what C is saying. Can someone help explain why B is incorrect?

[andrewgong01]

I did this question earlier and my thinking for B was that :

In reverse, local laws need to be stricter than national codes for what the judge says to work. Say local laws require 5 fire exits and national laws require 2 exits. The person is "unsure" and ends up building just 1 Fire Exit and hence is in violation of both codes. The person has no excuses since either way the builder has violated the laws on both levels. However, the reason why there may be an acceptable excuse for not building enough exits is if say the builder builds 3 Exits and then argues in court "I did not know if national or local laws had jurisdiction" then the acceptable excuse may work because the builder may have thought 3 exits were enough (as per national rules) when the builder is charged on a local law violation (that the builder does not have 5 Exits).

After writing what I just wrote I think what "B" hinges on is that for there to be an acceptable excuse that you can be exonerated is that one set of laws must be stricter than the other set of laws. That way you can argue that "Oh I thought only the nicer laws applied to me" but you must be charged with the stricter law. Here, the judge is saying Had I charged you for a local law you may have an excuse (roughly speaking) . How can you have an excuse to make logical sense? It occurs if local laws are stricter and you argue that you thought only the nicer laws applied to law (the federal law). In the question, the person is charged for a federal offence. The only way for it to work such that being charged for a local offence would allow the builder to exonerated (or considered for exoneration) is that local laws were tougher and hence there is a potential where a violation of a local law is NOT a violation of national laws. But in the paradigm B Creates, if local laws are nicer , then any violation of Federal standards is also a violation of local standards. Since we know Federal standards were not met that means it also did not meet local standards, which are nicer. But it makes no sense to then claim "maybe if you were charged on the nicer laws" I would exonerate you because Violation of Federal standards = violation of local standards (reverse is not true). We need a situtation where Federal standard violation does not always mean violation of local standards and that would only occur if local standards are stricter. And only in that case would it make sense to say had I charged you with stricter local standards then you may have a case for being exonerated.

One of the (incorrect) answer choices is still bothering me. B states "local codes may be less strict, but not more strict, than national codes" so therefore the defendant's excuse could be accepted under local codes, but not national codes because national codes are more strict. It seems very similar to what C is saying. Can someone help explain why B is incorrect?

[AnnaC659]

(B) does the opposite of (C). (B) makes local codes a subset of national codes.

Let us know if any questions remain.

I don't see how "local codes may be less strict" makes it that local codes are a subset of national codes...?
Instead, I eliminated B on the grounds that "strictness" doesn't really tell us anything about what rule is included/excluded in local law in comparison to national law.

[VickX462]

Great explanations so far, everyone.

I just want to clarify something about (D): it doesn't actually apply to the defendant.

Nowhere is the defendant saying that he is "ignorant of the difference between the two codes". Instead, the defendant is saying that he is "ignorant whether national or local codes apply to his area".

His ignorance isn't about what the codes actually say, just which one applies to the area where he's building.

Since (D) does not actually refer to the defendant, it's irrelevant.

(A) goes the wrong direction. If local codes and nat'l codes have nothing in common, then the defendant's excuse makes more sense ... (i.e. should he follow THIS code or the other, completely different code?)

(B) does the opposite of (C). (B) makes local codes a subset of national codes.

(E) sounds like a weaker form of (A). It still goes in the wrong direction. Pointing out the lack of overlap between the two codes helps the defendant's argument, not the judge's.

Let us know if any questions remain.

Hi Patrick! Can you elaborate on why answer B is wrong?

Wouldn't it be that if local code is less strict, being confused about the difference between the national code and the local code is an acceptable excuse?

Thanks!

[snoopy]

Hi Patrick! Can you elaborate on why answer B is wrong?

Wouldn't it be that if local code is less strict, being confused about the difference between the national code and the local code is an acceptable excuse?

Thanks!

This is not Patrick (-insert Spongebob joke here-), but to answer your question, even if local codes were less strict than national codes, you'd have to assume that strictness plays a factor in allowing the acceptability of the defendant's excuse.

[ohthatpatrick]

Picture a couple real world subsets:

"Sorry! I didn't know whether I was dealing with a cat or a feline."

This excuse works if the person was charged with mishandling a cat,
but it doesn't work if the person was charged with mishandling a feline.

If they're charged with mishandling a cat, but THEY thought they were dealing with some other feline, then they can say, "Sorry, I didn't realize I had to follow cat-rules. I was following feline-rules." (i.e. thinking you're dealing with a some generic feline wouldn't compel you to care about specific cat rules)

If they're charged with mishandling a feline, but THEY thought they were dealing with a cat, then they have no excuse. Since a cat IS a feline, thinking you're dealing with a cat would still compel you deal with feline rules.

Treat (C) as reality, and say
NATIONAL CODE = rules A, B, C, and D
LOCAL CODE = rules A, B, C, D, and E

If the defendant was charged with violating local codes, he could have said, "Oh, sorry. I didn't realize I needed to follow rule E. I thought we were only worried about national codes."

Since we was charged with violating national codes, he can't say, "Oh, sorry, I didn't realize I needed to follow rules A/B/C/D ... I thought I was only worried about local codes." (Local codes still have rules A/B/C/D, so this excuse is unacceptable)

Hope this helps.

[JeremyK460]

Since (D) does not actually refer to the defendant, it's irrelevant.

if i'm confused as to whether some rules that apply to the CBA (chinese basketball) also apply to the NBA, it wouldn't be irrelevant for someone to say to me that i'm ignorant of the difference between the two rulebooks

it would not necessarily be appropriate for them to say. it would be somewhat relevant, but not appropriate

the problem with (d) is that it's too vague

it's possible that being 'ignorant' of the difference between the rulebooks is enough to justify lowering fines for not complying to local codes because the judge says 'such confusion might justify lowering fines had the defendant been charged with not complying with local codes'

accepting (d) closes off this line of reasoning for the judge