#17 - Must Be True

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation
(See the complete passage discussion here: lsat/viewtopic.php?t=14213)

The correct answer choice is (A)

This question asks for the answer choice that provides a statement that’s true of Canadian and U.S.
law, but not true of Classical Roman law.

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. This is the blackmail paradox that is
presented in the first paragraph of the first passage; the two acts that are legal separately are those
of seeking money, and of disclosing information, an act that is legal based on our guarantee of free
speech. Classical Roman law did not guarantee free speech, and did not consider truth to constitute
legal privilege.

Answer choice (B): The transaction is characterized by a triangular structure in both contexts, so this
cannot be the right answer.

Answer choice (C): This is an Opposite Answer, because the author of the first passage mentions that
laws are written broadly, relying on prosecutors not to enforce statutes precisely as written.

Answer choice (D): This is not a statement that is true only of common law, so this choice can be
safely ruled out of contention.

Answer choice (E): This is an Opposite Answer; U.S. and Canadian laws broadly prohibit blackmail,
while it was Classical Roman law that had no special category for the crime of blackmail.

[mpoulson]

Hello,

Can you point me to passage that indicate why A is the answer or simply explain why is it correct? I really struggled with this one to find something specific in the text that made it correct. Thank you.

V/r,

Micah

[David Boyle]

Hello,

Can you point me to passage that indicate why A is the answer or simply explain why is it correct? I really struggled with this one to find something specific in the text that made it correct. Thank you.

V/r,

Micah

Hello,

"The heart of the problem—known as the blackmail paradox—is that two acts, each of which is legally permissible separately, become illegal when combined." shows us that passage A says "legally permissible", which is definitely missing in passage B, which says, "And if the shame would cause harm to the person’s status or reputation, then prima facie the threatened act of revelation was unlawful."

David

[lsatprep1215]

Hi,

I understand why A is correct but I want to know why B is wrong? I thought Roman Law is not a transaction of triangular structure because it is relate to third party leverage, what Roman Law cares is if the shame would cause harm to the person’s status or reputation?

[Paul Marsh]

Hi lsatprep! Nice job working out why Answer Choice (A) is correct.

As for Answer Choice (B), it is incorrect because blackmail is by its very nature triangular. The triangular aspect of blackmail doesn't change no matter what legal framework you apply to it: Canadian, Roman, maritime law, that of a lawless anarchist state, etc. (you get the point). That is, the way blackmail works is by definition triangular, regardless of what the law of a specific society has to say about blackmail.

What do we mean by the triangular nature of blackmail? Let's say I cheated on a test, and you (my fellow classmate) know about it. You tell me to pay you $50 or you're going to tell the teacher. Obviously, that's blackmail. Now the reason that you're able to ask me for $50 is because presumably if the teacher finds out, I'm up the creek without a paddle. Your request for $50 relies on the teacher's interest in the information that I cheated. If the teacher didn't care about the information, you wouldn't be able to try to get $50 out of me. In this way, the blackmail is triangular: it's a relationship between you, me, and the teacher (even though the teacher knows nothing about it at that point). Same thing if I stole something and you know about it and threaten to call the police unless I pay you $50. In that case the triangle is between you, me, and the police. If I'm the president of the United States and you have secret information that I completely lied to the public and want me to pay you $50 to keep quiet, the third leg of the triangle is the American people. It's the same way in every case of blackmail: it's a relationship between the blackmailer, the person being blackmailed, and an unwitting third party who would presumably be interested in the information that the blackmailer has.

According to the author of Passage A, this triangular nature of blackmail is why blackmail is morally wrong: the blackmailer is using the third party's presumed interest as leverage against the person being blackmailed, without that third party's knowledge or consent.

In any case, blackmail is triangular by nature regardless of the legal framework. So Answer Choice (B) is incorrect. Hope that helps!

[lsatprep1215]

Thanks for explaining to me!

[christinecwt]

Hi Team - can anyone further elaborate on why Answer Choice D is wrong? Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

Hey Christine, before we answer, I am going to push back on you a little bit. What about that answer is attracting you? What about it makes it look better than the others? And then, go on the attack, and tell us what you think makes that answer wrong. There's always more to learn by going through that process on your own first! And, once we see the way you are thinking about it, we can do a better job of helping you see where you may be going wrong.

Do the same with any other pending questions you have in this Forum, too! Tell us more about your analysis, so we can give you more helpful replies. We'll keep an eye out for those!