Q18

[samantha.rose.shulman]

18. (E)
Question Type: Inference (52-56)
The wording of this question makes it a bit more difficult to understand our task. "Would not be illegal" can simply be reworded to "legal". Often the LSAT will use negated language to confuse us. So, we can say that we are looking for something that the Romans would consider illegal but the Canadians and Americans would consider legal.

Let’s start by first going through the answer choices and eliminating the actions that would be illegal under Canadian and U.S. common law as well as the actions that we do not have enough information to determine whether or not they would be illegal.

We do not have enough information to determine the legality of (A) or (C). Eliminate both! Beware of using outside information! Although you may know (A) and (C) are illegal in the "real world" they are not specified as illegal (or legal) in the LSAT world.

The rest would all be legal under Canadian and U.S. common law. Now we have to find the one that would be illegal under Roman law.

It isn’t too far of a leap to believe that public authorities would have an interest in having (B) and (D) revealed. Therefore, these actions would fit the Classical Roman law exception and wouldn’t be illegal. Eliminate.

This leaves us with (E), which is our correct answer. The public authorities would most likely not want someone to reveal to the public something negative about one of their own. Couldn’t this look poorly on all of them? We know that what public authorities think are important to Classical Roman law (lines 52-56), so therefore it isn’t too far of a leap to infer that this action would be illegal.

[hongruimao]

Thank you for the helpful information.

But why are B, D and E legal under Canadian and US common law? Is it because it only reveals the information but does not ask for money so that it is protected under freedom of speech?

Thank you.

[Nina]

why is D incorrect? i think it is reasonable to infer that a government tax agency will be interested in knowing if one's employer (such as a company) have concealed their true income, since the issue is within its charge.

and also, if we change B into "revealing to public" instead of "public authorities", will it be a correct answer?

thanks a lot!

[XandraAilis894]

I chose A right away, cuz as we've seen in Q16, the Roman law didn't really have the strong legal protection towards free speech. (The last sentence of Passage B says, saying something true doesn't lawfully justifies the act of revealing it. Not so much freedom in speech there.) So the Roman law does not care for (not as much as US/Canadian law does) for the legality of free speech, which makes A not applicable to it. To me, it was almost just an inference question from Q16. Hope it helps!


________________________
Subscribe for 70-646 exam dumps We offer up-to-dated VMWARE latest resource Albany State University We offer up-to-dated University of Oxford dumps exam by using Principia College

[coldnjl]

How I approached this question was first look for the triangular structure that is the key to the wrongness of the blackmail transactions that are key in Canadian and United States common law (line 21-26), making the action illegal. This eliminated A, B, and D as all three had a victim, a blackmailer (narrator), and a govt. interest whether it was a govt. tax agency or the US military. Now I have C and E. C appears out of scope while E offers no govt. interest that is important to Canadian and US common law. Furthermore, it satisfies Classical Roman law of illegality by causing harm to the person's status (line 38-43). Hence E is the right answer.