PT 68 S2 Q16

Walrus
Posts: 38
Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2013 12:04 am

PT 68 S2 Q16

Postby Walrus » Sat Feb 01, 2014 10:14 pm

Defendant:
Fact : Defendant admits noncompliance with national building codes
P: He confused whether national or local building codes we applicable to his case
C: Penalties should not be imposed
Judge:
Hypothetical situation: If defendant had been charged with noncompliance with local codes this excuse might be acceptable.
C:In defendant's case his confusion might not be accepted like a reason for excuse.

Which one of the following principles, if correct, must helps to justify judge's reasoning

"C" (correct) required by national codes-->required by local codes

So "C" implies that defendant didn't comply with both national and local building codes. This lends support to the idea that his confusion is not acceptable reason for excuse since rules that he violated are the same in both national and local codes.

I am having trouble with part "This excuse might be acceptable had he been charged with noncompliance with local codes..." Since question asks to justify judge's REASONING I tried to find some support for distinction made by judge.

So if
- National code-->Local code,
- defendant confused national codes and local codes and
- defendant is charged with noncompliance with local codes
He might be excused according to judge.

On what grounds can defendant be excused?
If defendant violated local codes it is possible that he did not violate national codes. So what? What would judge excuse?
If defendant didn't violate anything and was only charged with violation then there is no reason for excuses at all.

Also question asks about "most helps to justify" and "C" indeed lends some support for judge's reasoning. But "This excuse might be acceptable had he been charged with noncompliance with local codes..." part sounds very confusing.

Please help!

User avatar
Jeffort
Posts: 1897
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2008 4:43 pm

Re: PT 68 S2 Q16

Postby Jeffort » Sat Feb 01, 2014 11:57 pm

That comment by the judge is basically saying that the excuse of being confused about which rules to follow could be an acceptable/legit defense/excuse for violating local codes, but is not a valid excuse for violating national codes. This means the judge believes there could be a situation where mistakenly following the wrong set of rules could cause you to accidentally violate local codes due to confusion/mistake and use that honest mistake as a valid/acceptable excuse for breaking those rules.

The main conclusion of the reasoning is that his excuse is unacceptable for what he is charged with and admits is true, non-compliance with national codes. (C) gives you a premise that tells you exactly why his excuse doesn't get him off the hook for violating the national codes. Being confused between whether local or national codes applied and which rules to follow is irrelevant since the national rules are duplicated as local codes, so whichever set of rules he picked would both have included the national codes including the one he broke, which means he didn't really try to follow either set of rules, which means his excuse is basically a lie.

In short, if you try to follow at least one of the sets of rules, no matter which set you pick, you'll always be following the national codes, so confusion about which set of rules as an excuse for failing to follow national rules is a BS excuse.

The side comment of the judge is referring to a different situation than what happened, if the guy was charged with violating local code instead of national code. If the guy was charged with violating a local code that requires something that national codes do not and the guy was following national codes at the time thinking they were the correct rules to follow, his excuse could be valid in that situation since he wouldn't be in violation of national rules, only the local codes and the violation could have been the result of an honest mistake due to confusion about which rules applied. Unfortunately for the guy, that's not the situation he is in and is why his excuse fails. It is clearly a lie since if he had mistakenly applied the wrong set of rules as he claims, he wouldn't have violated the national code since everything in the national code is also in the local code. The reverse of that isn't established so there could be local codes which require stuff that are not included in the national code. In that situation you could mistakenly fail to comply with local codes by thinking national codes apply and only following them.

Walrus
Posts: 38
Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2013 12:04 am

Re: PT 68 S2 Q16

Postby Walrus » Sun Feb 02, 2014 1:20 am

Thank you Jeffort, now it is clear to me that judge draws a distinction between lie and mistake.

You mentioned "The side comment of the judge." Is this comment a part of the judge's reasoning? And is there any difference between "justify conclusion" and "justify the reasoning" questions?

User avatar
Jeffort
Posts: 1897
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2008 4:43 pm

Re: PT 68 S2 Q16

Postby Jeffort » Sun Feb 02, 2014 2:27 am

Walrus wrote:Thank you Jeffort, now it is clear to me that judge draws a distinction between lie and mistake.

You mentioned "The side comment of the judge." Is this comment a part of the judge's reasoning? And is there any difference between "justify conclusion" and "justify the reasoning" questions?


Yeah it's part of the reasoning, but mentioning that the excuse might be acceptable in the other situation isn't critical to the logic that makes (C) correct. The extra context it provides can help you figure out that honest excuse vs. BS lie for an excuse is the basis of the conclusion more easily, but without it putting (C) together with the rest of the stimulus is still enough to prove that the excuse is a lie and the reason the judge finds it unacceptable.

Depending on the specific full stems you are thinking of that those phrases are sometimes found in, there can be a difference due to other words. Sufficient assumption question stems sometimes use the word justifies and the word conclusion along with another phrase or wording that all combined make it a SA question rather than a strengthen/helps to justify question. The word reasoning rather than conclusion is usually used in strengthen/helps to justify (usually with a principle) questions as opposed to SA stems but neither of these patterns hold 100%.

The other words and phrases present besides just reasoning/conclusion and justifies/justify are critical for differentiating SA/justify questions from strengthen/most helps to justify/help justify with a principle questions.

A critical distinction that is easily overlooked is the use of 'justifies' vs. 'most helps to justify'. Justifies means it's a SA question, most helps to justify is just a strengthen. Basically, don't rush to judgment about what type of Q a stem is asking just from the word justify, the word conclusion, or the word reasoning in the stem. You need to inspect the entire combination of words/phrases in each stem to determine type since the test writers paraphrase a lot and write stems for each question type in many different ways to ask the same thing while repeatedly using several common words in stems for a few different types. Justify is one of several commonly used words that appears in stems for several different question types. Same thing with strongly, supports, reasoning, conclusion and others.

Which specific stems and question types are you having difficulty identifying correctly and what specific things in the phrasings are tripping you up with them?

Walrus
Posts: 38
Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2013 12:04 am

Re: PT 68 S2 Q16

Postby Walrus » Sun Feb 02, 2014 5:30 pm

These questions ask to strenghten the argument:
most helps to justify the argument
most helps to justify argument's conclusion

"Most helps to justify resoning" sounds more inclusive to me. There could be part of the reasoning that doesn't have any bearing on the strenght of the argument and that needs separate justification.

Are argument and reasoning the same thing? Do I need to worry about this distinction?

User avatar
Christine (MLSAT)
Posts: 358
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2013 3:41 pm

Re: PT 68 S2 Q16

Postby Christine (MLSAT) » Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:59 pm

Walrus wrote:These questions ask to strenghten the argument:
most helps to justify the argument
most helps to justify argument's conclusion

"Most helps to justify resoning" sounds more inclusive to me. There could be part of the reasoning that doesn't have any bearing on the strenght of the argument and that needs separate justification.

Are argument and reasoning the same thing? Do I need to worry about this distinction?



No, I don't think you need to worry about this distinction. "the reasoning" is just shorthand for "the leap the author makes from premise to conclusion". You should be approaching all of those stems in the same essential way.

Walrus
Posts: 38
Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2013 12:04 am

Re: PT 68 S2 Q16

Postby Walrus » Tue Feb 04, 2014 2:03 pm

Thank you!




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bcapace and 5 guests