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

Prepare for the LSAT or discuss it with others in this forum.
Pastels

Bronze
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

Silver
Posts: 1314
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

Bronze
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: No registered users and 11 guests