prep 33, Section 2, the last sentence of the last passage

soyeonjeon
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 12:28 am

prep 33, Section 2, the last sentence of the last passage

Postby soyeonjeon » Wed Sep 19, 2012 10:48 pm

I'm having difficulty understanding the very last sentence of the passage, which begins with "This clear-grounds proviso....". that it got demoted from a rule to a presumption...It seems critical to understanding the passage as a whole. I don't quite get the main point either.
Can someone helpe me understand the last sentence?
Thanks,
Best Wishes

User avatar
TripTrip
Posts: 2740
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 9:52 am

Re: prep 33, Section 2, the last sentence of the last passage

Postby TripTrip » Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:02 pm

I can help you.

The sentence itself is actually not that important. Rephrased: "The current rule on including evidence allows us to exclude more evidence than Bentham would have liked, since he believed in including nearly all evidence, but his basic idea of including evidence by default is still important."

As for the main point, it's clear that the passage is about Bentham and his non-exclusion rule for evidence (I hope you gathered that!) which crosses off answers "D" and "E" for Q 23 (they don't mention Bentham at all). "A" isn't true because Bentham could not look at modern rules without some sort of time traveling device. No subsequent developments are discussed, so it isn't "C". That leaves "B", which is the answer. (The author talks about imperfection in line 33.)

Does that answer your question?

soyeonjeon
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 12:28 am

Re: prep 33, Section 2, the last sentence of the last passage

Postby soyeonjeon » Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:51 pm

Thank you. It helped greatly.
May I, however, ask another question?
At the very last sentence of the fourth paragraph, by "protect," does it mean to protect it from being excluded from the court(not used as evidence at the court)? or the other way around? I'm confused since the sentence before it is about social values may override the desire for relevant evidence. and then it says, but then, don't use it in the court(in other words protect it from being excluded for cross-examination and such?)??

I'm confused here.

I mean, why does it say "but then" when the sentence before it is consistent with the last sentence??

Thanks,
Last edited by soyeonjeon on Thu Sep 20, 2012 12:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
TripTrip
Posts: 2740
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 9:52 am

Re: prep 33, Section 2, the last sentence of the last passage

Postby TripTrip » Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:57 pm

soyeonjeon wrote:At the very last sentence of the fourth paragraph, by "protect," does it mean to protect it from being excluded from the court(used as evidence at the court)? or the other way around?


The other way around. Protecting a conversation as in protecting it from being made public. Don't get bogged down here - we are only talking about including and excluding evidence. No need to go deeper down the rabbit hole.

And the two sentences are not consistent. Bentham did not advocate protecting conversations between parents and children. (See line 29).

soyeonjeon
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 12:28 am

Re: prep 33, Section 2, the last sentence of the last passage

Postby soyeonjeon » Thu Sep 20, 2012 12:14 am

Also with regard to the very last sentence,
does it mean that it was demoted from a rule to an assumption??
that it now is a fact everyone assumes from the outset and no longer a rule, which people have to consciously call up?
so then why use the word "demoted"??
Thanks..
sorry im not a native English speaker, thats why...
Help would be highly appreciated.

soyeonjeon
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 12:28 am

Re: prep 33, Section 2, the last sentence of the last passage

Postby soyeonjeon » Thu Sep 20, 2012 1:00 am

The other way around. Protecting a conversation as in protecting it from being made public. Don't get bogged down here - we are only talking about including and excluding evidence. No need to go deeper down the rabbit hole.

And the two sentences are not consistent. Bentham did not advocate protecting conversations between parents and children. (See line 29).[/quote]

I understand the passage as follows:

line 29: Bentham envisioned a narrow exception to his non-exclusionary principle, i.e.confessions to a Catholic priest and such.
line 45: Bentham conceded that social values override desire for not protecting evidence(still envisioning exceptions to his non-exclusionary rule)
line 49: But then why not 'not exclude' some of the sacremental evidence?
--> Or does it mean that Bentham sould broaden the range of exceptions to his non-exclusionary rule? That may be why Im having trouble with this.... since he did envision exceptions and in line 49 the passage again states that "but then" he should have exceptions to his non-exclusionary principle...
Am I correct this time?
thats hard...

Thanks,

soyeonjeon
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 12:28 am

Re: prep 33, Section 2, the last sentence of the last passage

Postby soyeonjeon » Thu Sep 20, 2012 1:06 am

Might not "the conversation between parents and children" be part of "a few other instances" in line32?

User avatar
TripTrip
Posts: 2740
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 9:52 am

Re: prep 33, Section 2, the last sentence of the last passage

Postby TripTrip » Thu Sep 20, 2012 7:39 am

soyeonjeon wrote:Also with regard to the very last sentence,
does it mean that it was demoted from a rule to an assumption??
that it now is a fact everyone assumes from the outset and no longer a rule, which people have to consciously call up?
so then why use the word "demoted"??

A rule would be "All relevant evidence is included, period." The presumption is "All relevant evidence is included by default, until there's a good given reason not to include it." It's demoted because the rule keeps evidence in all the time while the presumption just keeps it in by default at first, until other rules are applied.

soyeonjeon wrote:line 49: But then why not 'not exclude' some of the sacremental evidence?
--> Or does it mean that Bentham sould broaden the range of exceptions to his non-exclusionary rule? That may be why Im having trouble with this.... since he did envision exceptions and in line 49 the passage again states that "but then" he should have exceptions to his non-exclusionary principle...

It means Bentham should broaden the range of exceptions to his non-exclusionary rule. Bentham envisioned exceptions, but the author of the passage points out that his exceptions were not sufficient. Line 29 was specifically put in place to confuse you by giving you a tiny inkling that Bentham might have exceptions to his hard-fast exclusionary rule, while the author spends a great deal of the passage discussing how those exceptions were too few and far between.

soyeonjeon wrote:Might not "the conversation between parents and children" be part of "a few other instances" in line32?


We have to take the passage at face value and assume the writer would have told us if that was the case (the passage lists out every specific exception to Bentham's non-exclusion rule which will be relevant to the rest of the passage).

We also can infer that it's not because the sentence mentioning it starts with "But then..." If he did support excluding evidence from conversations with parents/social workers, the sentence would not have been phrased that way in that context.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 7 guests