#19 - Parallel

[bli2016]

Hi, here I was confused because I thought U.S. and Canadian law did not have a coherent theory of blackmail, versus Roman law had a very clear prohibition on actions causing harm, which applied to blackmail. The way I understood the passage, the point that there are specific laws that prohibit blackmail was an interpretation of the law and suggestion made by the author. Therefore, I chose C which reflected the dichotomy between having no coherent theory (US/Canada) and having a broader theory (Rome) making something illegal. Can someone please explain why this is not the case? Thanks!

[Luke Haqq]

Hi bli2016!

Happy to try to give some insight on this one. First, I'll work on unpacking the right answer, (D): "One country makes it illegal for felons to own guns; another country has no such ban because it makes gun ownership illegal for everyone but police and the military."

As I understood the analogy suggested in (D), the first part of it is analogous to U.S./Canadian common law (because those countries have made it illegal via statutes to commit blackmail). The second part is analogous to Roman law, according to which the "revelation of shameful information was protected only if the revelation had been made for a legitimate purpose and dealt with a matter that the public authorities had an interest in having revealed." In other words, under Roman law, there's no need to create a law banning blackmail because the starting point for everyone is that it's not protected speech to begin with (Passage B describes the topic of blackmail more in terms of free speech), but is only protected in exceptional, circumstances.

To your reasons, I understand that a dichotomy could legitimately be made between these passages as you suggest, as lack of coherence (U.S./Canada) vs. clearly articulated (Roman law). You certainly seem right to describe it that way. However, it's not clear to me how that dichotomy is captured by answer (C). That answer choice uses the analogy of one country allowing "many" tax exemptions versus another country offering "fewer" exemptions, which doesn't seem to represent a coherence vs. non-coherence dichotomy.

Hope that helps!

[askuwheteau@protonmail.com]

Hello ,

In the question stem, I understand treated to be referring to the application of law (and the law’s scope) to a specific crime committed. Under both US and Roman legal principles, Blackmail is illegal. The US defining something as blackmail is conducted via application and enforcement of broad statues; however, application and enforcement of these broad statues are governed by the triangular principle. Whereas, Rome defined blackmail as something which a.) caused actual harm, b) not originating from legitimate purpose, & c.) no public authorities having interest in revelations.

So, here’s my reasoning for selecting the correct answer choice.

A: Unsupported (doesn’t deal with illegality as defined under law)

B: Contender (in this case, both situations are illegal)

C: Unsupported (doesn’t deal with illegality at all)

D: Contender (in this case, both situations are illegal)

E: Unsupported (in this case, one jurisdiction defines something as illegal while the other does not)

Choices B & D look like contenders thus far. Since parallel reasoning questions are MBT type, I selected choice D. This is because D talks about narrow illegality (i.e, USA…triangular structure) vs broad illegality (i.e., Rome). Choice B doesn’t reflect this same thought pattern.

Let me know if there's a more time-saving way to approach this question (and other types like it).

Thanks,

Jonathan

[Jeff Wren]

Hi Jonathan,

First, in case you missed it, here's a link to the beginning of the discussion of this question, including a breakdown of the answers.

viewtopic.php?f=775&t=1662

Parallel reasoning questions are designed to be time consuming by their very nature/length. Fortunately, there usually aren't many of them in any given LR or RC section, and there often are quicker ways of approaching these questions.

In this case, the key is to first be very clear and precise on the differences between the ways that U.S./Canadian common law and classical Roman law treat blackmail.

U.S./Canadian common law explicitly prohibits what otherwise would be two legal actions separately, that become illegal (blackmail) when combined. It's legal to reveal private information that harms an individual if it's true, and it's legal to ask people for money, but it's not legal to threaten to reveal private harmful information if not given money (i.e. blackmail). The first part of Answer D, the prohibition of felons owning guns matches this perfectly because it's not illegal to own a gun (by itself) and it's not illegal to be a felon (by itself), but the two combined become illegal.

You mentioned the triangular nature of the blackmail relationship mentioned in Passage A, but that is the author's explanation for a coherent theory of blackmail rather than an actual feature of how blackmail is treated in the U.S./Canadian common law, and therefore doesn't really come into play in this question.

For Classical Roman law, blackmail is prohibited because the underlying conduct itself of revealing harmful private information is generally prohibited with very narrow exceptions made for "a legitimate purpose" and when it "dealt with a matter that the public authorities had an interest in having revealed" (lines 54-56). The second part of Answer D, making gun ownership illegal for everyone but police and military matches this perfectly because the underlying conduct itself (gun ownership) is generally prohibited with very narrow exceptions made (police and military).

[askuwheteau@protonmail.com]

Thank you for the very helpful explanation you gave. It made better sense than the administrator's explanation as to why choice D is the credited answer.

Have a safe weekend,

Jonathan