#24 - Concept Reference, Must Be True, Author's Perspective

[Administrator]

Please post below with any questions!

[15veries]

Is C correct because specific performance is encouraged only when "monetary damages could not adequately compensate the one who has been harmed by the breach of contract"?
Why is D wrong? I thought it says kind of same thing...if what talked in C happens, specific performance will take place I thought.

[Adam Tyson]

Correct about C, 15 - when monetary damages will do the job, specific performance should be avoided.

So what about D, where the party refuses to pay? The problem with this answer is that the author never discusses this situation, and also that the author is pretty clear that specific performance is a bad choice anytime you are talking about performing a service. See lines 39-46 for all the problems that entails. No, we would probably not want to order specific performance when someone refuses to pay, because that would probably make the problems described in those lines even worse.

Keep up the good work!

[Margo]

Hello,

I've been looking over this question and any input would be appreciated

I am comparing answers B (what I initially chose) and C (correct answer).

Why I chose B: I thought the main gist of the passage is that when monetary damages are sufficient in a case, enforcing specific performance should be avoided. Part of the reason for this is that in situations of employment contracting (as in question 24), enforcing specific performance can lead to negative psychological consequences. In the passage it talks about how court-enforced performance of the contract can be "detrimental to those involved in the dispute" and "should be avoided" and also that it requires "coercion" and risks "heightening dissatisfaction" and "intensifying psychological friction."

I chose B because I thought it compared monetary damages and specific performance in a way the author would agree with--that we should consider the negative psychological repercussions of enforcing specific performance.

However, looking at answer C, I can also see why this is compelling. The author is against specific performance in most cases of contractual employment, and answer C displays this. At the same time I'm not sure the author says in the passage that enforcement of specific performances would OFTEN be less than fully successful. Are we meant to infer this?

Also, is B incorrect because it assumes that specific performance costs less for the court to enforce than monetary damages, but this actually isn't stated in the passage? In fact, the passage seems to imply that it may cost more to enforce specific performance, although I may be reading into this too much: "even if the court HAD the resources necessary to ensure that such a contract would be enforced according to its terms" (line 47-48).

Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

Hey Margo, you've found the best reason for rejecting answer B when you wrote:

Also, is B incorrect because it assumes that specific performance costs less for the court to enforce than monetary damages, but this actually isn't stated in the passage? In fact, the passage seems to imply that it may cost more to enforce specific performance, although I may be reading into this too much: "even if the court HAD the resources necessary to ensure that such a contract would be enforced according to its terms" (line 47-48).

That's it exactly! Nowhere does the passage tell us that specific performance costs the court less to enforce, and in any event that is not the main objection to it. The main objection is that it is a bad remedy for the parties, because it can heighten dissatisfaction (for both parties) and intensify psychological friction (also for both parties). As to the "often" aspect, the author tells us that when specific performance is ordered in a service contract, coercion is necessitated (which sounds to me like ALL the time) and that "it (the court) would often do better to avoid posing such uncomfortable conditions."

I hope that helps, although I think you got there just fine on your own!

[Margo]

Thank you! I'm glad I was on the right path.

[rachelhannah]

While I found this passage relatively straightforward in general, #24 is feeling like a tough question, even after reading some of the explanations above. I'm still having difficulty seeing how the passage states that specific performance would be less than fully successful. Necessitating coercion doesn't seem to make the practice less than fully successful, from my reading.

It's beginning to seem like successful means here that everyone is satisfied with the outcome, or at least no psychological friction has been created. But the author never establishes that both parties need to be satisfied in order for a practice to be successful. It seems to me that success means the goal has been achieved. If an employer is seeking to force an employee to fulfill an employment contract, then hasn't the employer been successful if the employee is ordered to, and then does in fact, fulfill the employment contract? The passage never says the courts want to avoid forcing uncomfortable situations on employees/employers, so how do we even know that this isn't deemed a success by the court's standards?

So, if I'm looking at C as an answer choice, I feel like I have nothing in the passage that states that enforcement would not be successful...I recall line 46 ("Even if a court had the resources necessary to ensure a contract would be enforced according to its terms..."), but even here, it's not clear that the court doesn't have the resources. Maybe they do, maybe they don't.

So now I'm thinking that I'm not paying enough attention to the word "fully." For something to be "fully successful" must coercion not be in play?

Or maybe it has to do more with the "Author's Perspective" and what the author deems as successful...can this be the case, even though the author never explicitly stated this? Could it be that the author regards something as unsuccessful that the court or employers see as fully successful?

Thanks in advance for your help!

[Jonathan Evans]

Hi, Rachel,

Good question, and thank you for sharing a detailed explanation of your reasoning. There are a couple issues to consider in determining that answer choice (C) is the credited response.

We are looking for the statement the author would be most likely to agree with.

• Consider the alternative answer choices. Answer choice (A) is clearly contrary to the thrust of the passage, recommending the opposite of what the author would recommend. Answer choice (B) includes information about the cost of enforcing specific enforcement that (1) the passage does not contain and (2) likely isn't true. Answer choice (D) includes a conditional hypothetical that is outside the scope of the passage. Answer choice (E) discusses how often specific performance is "considered" in such cases. We have no information about this.
  
  Since these answer choices all have specific, egregious errors, we must choose the best answer, answer choice (C) which has no such salient flaws.

There is adequate evidence in the passage to support answer choice (C).

• "In fact, in some types of cases, court-enforced performance of the contract would actually be detrimental to those involved in the dispute and thus should be avoided." (lines 31-34)
  
  "Forcing someone to perform a service in association with, and especially under the direction of, another who has become an antagonist can, at the very least, heighten dissatisfaction and intensify psychological friction." (lines 43-45)
  
  In the circumstances discussed in answer choice (C), the author makes a categorical statement that court-enforced performance would be detrimental to those involved and should be avoided. Further, we know that such compelled service could "at the very least heighten dissatisfaction." It stands to reason that if dissatisfaction and friction would be the least of our worries in such a case, the results of such compulsory employment would be less than fully successful.
  
  It is important to understand that the text need not explicitly indicate what its rubric for "success" is. It is a reasonable assumption that a unsatisfactory situation as described in the passage would be "less than fully successful."
  
  Further, we may infer that since the author remarks that in all such cases specific performance should be avoided (lines 31-34), we may infer that the author would likely agree that specific performance would "often" not turn out well in these cases.
  
  The LSAT will often essentially hedge its bets by taking a categorical statement in the text and reducing the strength of its language. The author recommends specific performance be avoided in all these cases; the answer stipulates that ordering specific performance in these cases would often (but perhaps not always) be less than fully successful.

I hope this helps!

[rachelhannah]

Wow, this is an extremely helpful response.

Thank you for explanation, Jonathan!

[Angelicanb95]

I truly cannot understand RC question answer choices. On LR & LG, the wrong answers are so clearly wrong to me, but in RC it seems like the one I choose is always wrong.. and it makes absolutely no sense to me why.

I chose (E) because the previous question, #23, highlights as an example a systems analyst who refuses to work as contracted. (E )says specific performance is more often considered by the courts in those types of cases, as opposed to cases involving someone’s refusal to perform services. The 3rd paragraph discusses how forcing someone to perform SERVICES under their antagonizer is not the most appropriate remedy.

Answer choice (C) on question #24 says enforcement of a specific performance by the courts in such cases would often be less than fully successful. So why is the correct answer in #23 doing exactly that? The correct answer choice in #23 highlights an example wherein a systems analyst failed to assume her contracted duties and is ordered by the court to do so. So why does the very next question contradict that principle??