#25 - Must Be True, Purpose

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation
(See the complete passage discussion here: lsat/viewtopic.php?t=11646)

The correct answer choice is (A)

The answer to this specific reference question is prephrased in our discussion of the passage structure above: the reference to those conversations is meant to exemplify another example of a conversation that should perhaps also be excluded based on competing social interests. Correct answer choice (A) reflects the suggested potential exclusion—this is a situation in which “non-exclusion” is questionable—that is, this is a situation in which evidentiary exclusion might be proper.

[est15]

I'm having trouble understanding why E is incorrect and A is correct. It seemed to me that the author mentioning the conversations between social workers and their clients showed that Bentham's exceptions were super broad and could apply to a lot of situations, not just sacramental confessions.

[Steve Stein]

Hi,

That's an interesting question. The test makers are pretty clever, and often finding the right answer to an specific reference question requires you to consider the lines before and/or after those referenced by the question.

In this case, the author presents two questions at the end of the fourth paragraph about the limits of protected conversations: why not protect talk with social workers or between parents and children.

To determine why the author presented these questions, it is helpful to look at the beginning of the final paragraph: "Despite concerns such as these, (Bentham's nonexclusion principle)...began to prevail soon after Bentham's death."

In other words, those questions were listed to present concerns about the application of Bentham's approach, which is provided by correct answer choice (A).

I hope that's helpful! Please let me know whether this is clear--thanks!

~Steve

[lilmissunshine]

Hello,

I was choosing between (A) and (C) because I thought (C) was more specific in terms of "social interests or values". Is it wrong because the author does not provide much information on the conflict?

Many thanks!

[Malila Robinson]

Hi lilmissunshine,
Your reasoning for why C is not the correct answer is good. The conflict is noted, but there is not enough description to consider it an illustration of the conflict.
Hope that helps!
-Malila

[lanereuden]

If there is not enough illustration, what would “enough illustration” look like here?

[lanereuden]

Also, couldn’t the answer feasibly be B? So I guess what I am asking is: why not B?

[George George]

@lanereuden Great Q! Here, (B) distorts the author's purpose, and takes Bentham out of the equation. The author does not only seek to outline the historical problems of common law evidence, but also seeks to lay out Bentham's solution. I think a good takeaway here is that whenever an LSAT author describes both a problem and a solution, their primary purpose cannot be described without including the solution.

[lsatquestions]

I had different reasons for eliminating the other answer choices. Do you mind confirming my reasoning?

B) it's not actually an objection that was raised, but rather a hypothetical question by the author
C) not the point of the passage
D) not the point of the passage
E) doesn't say that a wide range of situations is covered and rather highlights a similar situation that would not (and should not) be covered even though it falls under the same principle of competing social interests/values

[mab9178]

Hi

I read the explanation for eliminating answer-choices E and B and I'm having difficulty accepting them. Perhaps I'm missing or misinterpreting pertinent textual language!

Per my understanding E is false on two grounds:

First, E presents lines 49-50 as "Bentham's exceptions." However, Lines 49-50 are the author's addendum, not Bentham's, to what might qualify as an exception to Bentham's rule.

Bentham, himself, did not go as far as justifying exceptions to his non-exclusionary principle. Sure he made a concession qualified with word "might" per lines 45-48 ("Further, in granting exclusions such as sacramental confessions, Bentham conceded that competing social interests or values might override the desire for relevant evidence."); but, to me, and please correct me if I am wrong, this is a far cry by him from compromising and agreeing to an exception to his "non-exclusion principle." Especially, the last sentence of the passage states: "This clear–grounds proviso allows more exclusions than Bentham would have liked, but the main thrust of the current outlook is Bentham's own nonexclusion principle, demoted from a rule to a presumption."

Another reason for eliminating E is the use of the word "wide." Had it said "wid[er]," then it would've been closer to being correct, though still incorrect on the first ground. But I am not sure I would characterize two additional scenarios as "a wide range of situations."

With respect to B, "objection" is a strong word. Lines 49-50 do not exemplify an objection because the language surrounding the "exception" rhetoric lacks finality! The language surrounding the idea of competing social interests is put together in uncertain terms such as "might override... so why not..."

Can I please get assurance- or be corrected in my interpretation?

Thank You
Mazen