The correct answer is (C) "No contributions to Brimley's campaign needed to be registered with the city council". But why is this correct? What if there's another section of the law that says that donations from residents exceeding, say, $200 need to be registered? Am I asking too much to demand that LSAC question makers explicitly write something along the lines of "the COMPLETE text of the ONLY law of Weston that in any way concerns political contributions in local election campaigns is as follows"..? Sigh.
LSAC writers raise such a stink about not getting outside the bounds of strict logical reasoning on most questions that I often put myself in some sort of a logical straightjacket and refuse to answer questions when I have even a minor suspicion of being out of scope..
3 posts • Page 1 of 1
- Posts: 449
- Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 4:18 am
It doesn't explicitly say that the complete and only saw says yadda yadda yadda, but it absolutely implies it. "The law of the city regarding elections is as follows:" implies that it's the entire law. Otherwise they would have to say "A portion of the law [...]," or "A law of the city regarding elections [...]," or something along those lines. It could be clearer, sure, but it doesn't necessarily need to be. The word "the" is the key.
- LSAT Blog
- Posts: 1263
- Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:24 pm
Shrimps wrote:Am I asking too much to demand that LSAC question makers explicitly write something along the lines of "the COMPLETE text of the ONLY law of Weston that in any way concerns political contributions in local election campaigns is as follows"..?
They say, "The law...is as follows:"
What follows is the law, as in the only law.
If you said, "The PrepTests I did this week are as follows:", then whatever follows must be the complete list of PrepTests you did that week. It doesn't allow for the possibility that there are others unmentioned.
If a weight loss program says, "The foods you may eat this week are as follows:", that means those are the only foods you can eat that week.
Therefore, the law regarding contributions consists only of what is mentioned in that sentence, and there are no other laws at all regarding contributions to mayoral campaigns.
Maybe you think the city should have other laws regarding contributions to mayoral campaigns (like, don't take $10,000+ from one particular corporation or special interest group), but that's not the law in this city. The law in this city only regards residents who are not former residents. That's it.
(This is why they call it legalese - the language is extremely precise.)
Hope this helps.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: kiklavan, Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests