#25 - Specific Reference, Strengthen

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation
(See the complete passage discussion here: lsat/viewtopic.php?t=14512)

The correct answer choice is (A)

Lines 56-58 contain the following statement: “Here, the provincial court’s ruling was excessively
conservative in its assessment of the current law.” Of course, the court’s ruling was that the law
had previously recognized only the aboriginal right to use the land and therefore granted minimal
property rights. Find an answer that shows that the right to use the land should have been more
broadly interpreted.

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. If, previously, courts have found that “use”
includes the right to sell land and resources, it is much more likely that the provincial court was
excessively conservative when they did not extend the same defi nition of “use” to the aboriginal
group as they would to another group.

Answer choice (B): Some students attempt to interpret this answer as meaning the provincial courts
were too conservative because had the aboriginals been given the use rights, then the aboriginals
could have profi ted in a fashion similar to the logging company. However, the argument is not about
the effects of the ruling, but rather about whether the court was too conservative in how it viewed and
applied a current body of law. In the context of the passage, information about post-ruling economic
effects do not strengthen an argument about excessive conservatism in assessing current law. And,
of course, there is no evidence that the court would have been aware of, or considered, the economic
consequences of its decisions.

Answer choice (C): If the courts have previously distinguished “use” from the right to sell land
and resources, there is precedent supporting the provincial court’s decision, and that weakens the
author’s position. This response implies that it is entirely normal, and not necessarily excessively
conservative, to rule that “use” does not have to include sale rights.

Answer choice (D): It is unclear why this ruling would prompt other aboriginal groups to pursue
land claims, and you cannot conclude that these new claims help prove that the provincial court was
excessively conservative (for example, it is possible that the case could have simply brought possible
land claims to the attention of aboriginal groups, whether or not those groups are aware of the details
of the case).

Furthermore, since “land claims” does not imply that these other aboriginal groups are defi nitely
pursuing the right to sell land and resources, the analogy between these groups and the case the
author discusses is extremely weak.

Answer choice (E): The fact that the court had not hear another case involving constitutional reforms
does not help prove or disprove that the court was conservative in its assessment of current law.

[HowardQ]

Hi,

I have a concern regarding this question.

The formal definition of conservative: holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion. C suggests that the court followed traditional attitudes and the author is criticizing it for not being innovative. While the correct answer A shows just the opposite where the court did not follow the conventional ruling and the author is wrong in terms of suggesting they were excessively conservative?

Given the correct answer, I figured "conservative" actually means incorrect or does not follow the rules here. Given the knowledge that the courts are supposed to consider other court rulings persuasive. Is this definition implied within the word conservative?

Thanks,

[Adam Tyson]

Good question, HowardQ. Let's deal with answer C first and show why it's not so great.

Prior courts have distinguished the two types of rights from one another - that means they consider the rights to be different and distinct in some way. But what does that mean about prior rulings that the court should have followed? Does ownership mean use and right to sell -both types of rights - or just use? Answer C gives us no indication of what precedent has been established, so we cannot know whether the ruling in the specific case under discussion followed precedent or broke from it. This answer should leave us scratching our heads, unsure what impact it has on the author's position.

Now to answer A, and let's compare the author's language to this answer. The author didn't just say the decision in the particular case was conservative, which would mean it stuck to convention and tradition and didn't do anything overly broad or innovative. No, the author said it was excessively conservative, meaning they weren't broad enough. Consider one of the words in the definition you used - cautious. The author is saying they were TOO cautious. Answer A supports that idea, by showing that they could have been a little more broad in their thinking, but they were overly cautious and narrow in their decision. Not innovative, but stingy.

I hope that helps make better sense of the right answer, while also helping you shoot down a wrong one with greater confidence. Answer A may not be perfect, but it is the best of the bunch here!