PT 37: Section 4, LR, #21 Political Theorist

secretad
Posts: 209
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 11:26 pm

PT 37: Section 4, LR, #21 Political Theorist

Postby secretad » Thu May 19, 2011 10:38 am

I understand the argument. However, how the answer choice justifies it is beyond me right now.

Conclusion of the argument: "Newly enacted laws need a period of immunity during which they can be repealed only if circumstances are dire."

First question I have is about the meaning of the word immunity in this sentence. Immunity means protection from something. So, what is this referring to? I this meaning that the laws have a cloud of protection against being repealed and that a necessary condition of them being repealed is if circumstances are dire?

The premises that support this conclusion, and of course, come up short in justifying this conclusion without a principle that justifies it are....

- Short-term consequences of any statutory change are likely to be painful

- Long term benefits are obscure initially because people need time to learn how to take advantage of it.

How does (B) Whether a law should be retained depends primarily on the long-term consequences of its enactment....justify this argument?

The stimulus never mentions long-term consequences.

User avatar
510Chicken
Posts: 88
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 5:50 pm

Re: PT 37: Section 4, LR, #21 Political Theorist

Postby 510Chicken » Thu May 19, 2011 11:51 am

secretad wrote:I understand the argument. However, how the answer choice justifies it is beyond me right now.

Conclusion of the argument: "Newly enacted laws need a period of immunity during which they can be repealed only if circumstances are dire."

First question I have is about the meaning of the word immunity in this sentence. Immunity means protection from something. So, what is this referring to? I this meaning that the laws have a cloud of protection against being repealed and that a necessary condition of them being repealed is if circumstances are dire?

The premises that support this conclusion, and of course, come up short in justifying this conclusion without a principle that justifies it are....

- Short-term consequences of any statutory change are likely to be painful

- Long term benefits are obscure initially because people need time to learn how to take advantage of it.

How does (B) Whether a law should be retained depends primarily on the long-term consequences of its enactment....justify this argument?

The stimulus never mentions long-term consequences.


"Long-term benefits" are a "long-term consequence".

Immunity refers to an initial period of time when the law cannot be repealed. Since this is when we would see the short term problems of any law, the author of the passage is basically telling us that we should ignore them, or at least that they should not affect our decision to repeal a law.

Once some time has passed and the immunity period ended, we start to see the long term effects of the law. The question is then "are the long term consequences (the ones felt presently) enough reason to repeal the law?"

Hence (B). Evaluate on long-term consequences.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ashrice13, Bing [Bot], towel13661 and 6 guests