June 2009 Section 2 Q25

tracy77
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 11:51 pm

June 2009 Section 2 Q25

Postby tracy77 » Fri Jun 22, 2012 10:55 pm

The correct answer is (C), but I feel that while the stimulus says there is no nonresident who needs to register with the city council, it doesn't (explicitly?) say whether residents or former residents need to register, thus the conclusion of (C) seems not guaranteed?
Last edited by tracy77 on Sun Jun 24, 2012 1:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
mindarmed
Posts: 959
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 2:16 pm

Re: June 2009 Section 2 Q25

Postby mindarmed » Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:33 pm

It doesn't mention any disclosure requirements by residents and former residents, therefore no such requirement exists in the context of this question. HTH.

03152016
Posts: 9189
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:14 am

Re: June 2009 Section 2 Q25

Postby 03152016 » Sat Jun 23, 2012 4:03 pm

.
Last edited by 03152016 on Tue Mar 15, 2016 2:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

tracy77
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 11:51 pm

Re: June 2009 Section 2 Q25

Postby tracy77 » Sun Jun 24, 2012 1:33 am

armedwithamind wrote:It doesn't mention any disclosure requirements by residents and former residents, therefore no such requirement exists in the context of this question. HTH.


But does it assume too much?

TERS
Posts: 161
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 11:29 pm

Re: June 2009 Section 2 Q25

Postby TERS » Sun Jun 24, 2012 7:21 pm

"The" on "The law" suggests that is the one and only relevant law regarding contributions in this case, no?

03152016
Posts: 9189
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:14 am

Re: June 2009 Section 2 Q25

Postby 03152016 » Sun Jun 24, 2012 9:31 pm

.
Last edited by 03152016 on Tue Mar 15, 2016 2:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

TylerJonesMPLS
Posts: 74
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2012 11:20 pm

Re: June 2009 Section 2 Q25

Postby TylerJonesMPLS » Wed Jun 27, 2012 5:20 pm

I agree that the passage refers to *the* law of the city regarding contributions. If the passage had said *a* law of the city regarding contributions, that would have allowed the possibility of other laws and conditions. But, as it is, the use of “the” indicates that there is only one city law concerning mayoral campaigns. But that is very easy to miss when you are working under timed conditions.

However, your point is a good one, even if it does not apply to this case. In general, a necessary condition can have many sufficient conditions. For instance, if you murder someone and you are caught, you will go to jail. But murdering someone is not the only sufficient condition for going to jail. For instance, if you steal a car and you are caught, you will go to jail. There are many sufficient conditions for the necessary condition of going to jail.

The close reading that it takes to notice the use of “the” instead of the use of “a”, and pick up on the implication, is one of the reasons this is a very hard question. I’m sure “the” is used to trick the reader. In the real world there are always several laws concerning campaign contributions. And so we would expect there to be several sufficient conditions for the necessary condition that contributions be registered. But the LSAT is not the real world and Weston is not a real city.

The other reason that this is a very hard question is that (E) appears to be necessarily true as well as (C). Again, this is a trick. It does necessarily follow that no contributions *needed* to be registered, which is (C). But it does not necessarily follow that no contributions were in fact registered, which is (E). Some contributions might have been registered by mistake. If so, it would still be true that Brimley complied with the campaign law, even though he registered a contribution he did not need to register by mistake. (A), (B) and (D) are non-starters. But (E) is a contender. In the rush of finishing the section, very few people are going to think of the possibility that Brimley may have registered some contributions by mistake.

bp shinners
Posts: 3091
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:05 pm

Re: June 2009 Section 2 Q25

Postby bp shinners » Thu Jun 28, 2012 1:34 pm

Max324 wrote:
TERS wrote:"The" on "The law" suggests that is the one and only relevant law regarding contributions in this case, no?

Yep. "The law regarding contributions to campaigns is..." is sort of like saying "The book I brought to class is..."; it insinuates that there is only one.


Yep. The LSAT is being tricksy.

Truly, one of the groan-worthy questions for that reason.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BobBoblaw and 3 guests