#1 - Concept Reference, Must Be True

[Administrator]

Please post below with any questions!

[LSATstudent2000]

Hi!

I'm a bit confused as to how the right answer choice, (E), "genera," is pickable here, since, to my knowledge, the formulation "x is too genera" is improper grammatically, and "genera" is defined as the plural of the noun "genus,"

Is the answer choice a typo meant to read "general"?

Thank you!!

[kjeevanjee]

I made the same mistake at the previous poster.

I was initially attracted to answer choice E, but then I realized that genera was not grammatically correct. I chose answer choice C because permissive could be interpreted to mean that they law wasn't narrow enough. Can you tell me where I went wrong?

[James Finch]

Hi guys,

Yes, answer choice (E) is meant to read "general," and the printed Preptest 78 does reflect that. So if you got the question wrong because of reading "genera," don't feel bad, it's an issue with the PDF copy.

[ataraxia10]

I think it's very difficult to distinguish which answer choice is better--C or E. Can you provide me with some insights on how to correctly distinguish the correct answer?

[James Finch]

Hi ataraxia,

This is difficult because it requires remembering what the question stem is actually referring to, which is the laws themselves, and combining that with the outcome of jury nullification, which is that a defendant would be acquitted despite being factually guilty of the crime for which he was tried. So if the laws were too permissive, the defendant would likely not be factually guilty; instead the laws would be overly broad, and apply to situations where a jury would think that punishment for the defendants' actions would be inappropriate. When reasoned out like this, only (E) fits the bill/Prephrase of laws being too broad for their intended purpose.

Hope this clears things up!

[lemonade42]

Hi,
I'm still not understanding the difference between permissive and general. They both sound like synonyms to me, so it's hard to choose between them. I know that the stimulus says that the laws are general, but it seems like permissive also works.
I'm confused by the previous explanation, where does the stimulus suggest "if the laws were too permissive, the defendant would likely not be factually guilty"?

[Jeff Wren]

Hi lemonade,

"Permissive" means that the laws are too lenient. In other words, they permit or allow a lot of behavior that some would consider criminal. It's the opposite of laws that are too strict or severe.

For example, a law that said "theft is not a crime unless the property stolen is worth over $500" would probably be considered too permissive by most people as it would allow people to steal property worth less than $500.

In Passage B, one reason that juries would nullify would be because the laws were too strict, not because they were too lenient/permissive.

The reason that the defendant probably wouldn't be factually guilty under permissive laws is that permissive laws allow a lot more behavior and are therefore harder to break.

For example, it's probably very easy to accidentally break a strict speed limit of 25 miles per hour. It's much harder to accidentally break a permissive speed limit of 100 miles per hour.

"General," on the other hand, does not mean permissive at all. A law that is too general means that it was worded in such a way that it could apply to more people/situations than was actually intended. Think of general as too "broad" (line 48), not specific enough.

For example, if there was a very general/broad law that said "All theft is punishable by at least one year in prison," then a jury may find that such a general/broad law should not apply in a minor case (such as a child shoplifting a candy bar), and so the jury could nullify in that case.