PT 57 RC #3. I simply think this is bullshit.

Pastels
Posts: 114
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 12:41 pm

PT 57 RC #3. I simply think this is bullshit.

Postby Pastels » Thu Sep 30, 2010 9:50 pm

PT 57 RC #3.

Lines 8 - 14

"Unless citizens' groups were applying for broadcasting licenses, citizens did not have the standing necessary to voice their views at an FCC hearing."

How does this make D "Before the United Church of Christ won its case, the FCC would not allow citizens' groups to speak as members of the public at FCC hearings."


Am I missing how the Unless part makes this answer very very wrong?

bartleby
Posts: 1315
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 3:23 am

Re: PT 57 RC #3. I simply think this is bullshit.

Postby bartleby » Thu Sep 30, 2010 10:05 pm

Pastels wrote:PT 57 RC #3.

Lines 8 - 14

"Unless citizens' groups were applying for broadcasting licenses, citizens did not have the standing necessary to voice their views at an FCC hearing."

How does this make D "Before the United Church of Christ won its case, the FCC would not allow citizens' groups to speak as members of the public at FCC hearings."


Am I missing how the Unless part makes this answer very very wrong?


Yup. Lines 8-14: Unless introduces the "special" necessary part...

Standing necessary to voice opinion -> applying

No apply -> no speaking/voicing views

User avatar
Cromartie
Posts: 200
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 12:27 pm

Re: PT 57 RC #3. I simply think this is bullshit.

Postby Cromartie » Thu Sep 30, 2010 10:08 pm

Pastels wrote:PT 57 RC #3.

Lines 8 - 14

"Unless citizens' groups were applying for broadcasting licenses, citizens did not have the standing necessary to voice their views at an FCC hearing."

How does this make D "Before the United Church of Christ won its case, the FCC would not allow citizens' groups to speak as members of the public at FCC hearings."


Am I missing how the Unless part makes this answer very very wrong?


There are 2 separate groups here: first, parties applying for a broadcasting license, whose interest it was to have the license approved; second, the general public at large, whose interest may be to have the license not approved. Prior to the court case, only those parties who were applying for a license were allowed to speak during the hearings. Members of the public at large were not allowed to speak and voice their opposition/concerns.

In any given hearing, if a citizen's group was not part of the party applying for a broadcasting license, and they were instead there to represent the public, they were not allowed to speak. This fits perfectly with D.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 34iplaw, CHyde, Deardevil, sethnoorzad, Walliums and 14 guests