#19 - Parallel

[Administrator]

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

The correct answer choice is (D)

This question asks for the relationship that most closely parallels the relationship between common
law and classical Roman law; the two passages deal with an issue that is illegal under one system but
not specified as illegal under the other.

Answer choice (A): This choice fails to parallel the relationship between the passages presented, as it
deals with a legal requirement rather than a legal prohibition.

Answer choice (B): This choice, which deals with overlapping prohibitions, does not parallel the
relationship between the passage presented as discussed above.

Answer choice (C): This choice deals with varying numbers of allowances for income tax
deductions; it does not present an issue that is specified as illegal under one system and not
specifically prohibited under the other.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. Like the two passages presented, this choice
deals with an act that is specified as illegal under one system, while under a second system such
specification is not necessary because of the lack of a particular right (in the passages presented, this
right is the right to free speech, and in this choice, it is the right to own a gun).

Answer choice (E): This choice deals with different laws: under one system, racing grade engines
are specifically prohibited, and in another they are specifically allowed. This does not parallel the
relationship between the two passages presented, so this choice should be ruled out of contention in
response to this Parallel Reasoning question.

[jared.xu]

This is an analogy question. I cannot understand why the correct answer would be D. I chose E because it seems to me to be the most analogous relationship. The original pair is Canadian and US common law versus classical Roman law. The reason I like E better is that just as blackmail is completely illegal in Canadian and US law, one country makes it illegal to drive the motorcycle with race-grade engines, period. Just as blackmail is not by itself illegal in Roman law, another country legally permits such a motorcycle. In classical Roman law, if blackmail causes harm, it becomes illegal. In the same way, if the rider of the motorcycle commits traffic violations in this second country, he or she will be fined. For D, on the other hand, I cannot see how the relationship is analogous.

I have an additional questions: If the analogy question is phrased as this question is ("The relationship between the ways in which Canadian and US common law and classical Roman law treat blackmail, as described in the passages, is most analogous to the relationship between which one of the following pairs"), is it safe to assume that the first element of the correct answer will parallel "Canadian and US common law," and the second element in the answer will parallel "classical Roman law"? In other words, will the pair be presented in the exact same order as that in the question? Or do I have to spend time worrying about whether the first element or the second element of the answer fits into "Canadian and US common law," i.e. whether the relationship in the correct answer is the other way around?
Thank you in advance for taking the time to answer my questions. I am sure I will learn a great deal.

[Adam Tyson]

I think the issue here is that in both the U.S./Canadian approach and the Roman approach, blackmail is still illegal, but for different reasons. In the U.S./Canadian approach, it is illegal because of a specific, targeted law or set of laws, while in Roman law it is illegal because it falls under a broad, less specific prohibition. Answer E falls short because in one country the engines are illegal, while in the other they are legal (although subject to stiffer penalties for misuse). It's an attractive answer, especially if you focus on the Roman approach of analyzing harm done rather than on comparing the two systems' approaches to each other.

D is the better answer because gun ownership by felons is illegal in both systems, but in the first country it is because of a specific rule and in the second country it is because of a broader rule.

As to the order, in my experience analogy questions like this have always followed the same order as the original pair to which you are drawing a comparison. If they want you to pick titles to articles that match the relationship of Passage A to Passage B, for instance, they will give the Passage A-like title first and the Passage B-like title second.

Hope that helps! Good luck on the exam.

Adam

[jared.xu]

Hi Adam,

Thank you so much for the explanations. I now understand why D is the right answer. However, I would still like to know how to prevent making this type of mistake in the future. I see that choosing D would require us to assume that blackmail fits under the category of “action that causes harm.” I did not make this assumption. And the text is not very helpful in suggesting this assumption. I thought that it is possible for a rich person to be blackmailed without being harmed. The rich person could be so rich that the money demanded by the blackmailers is so insignificant that s/he is not harmed by it. So the rich person gladly pays up. That is the reason I chose E. In my mind, the second element of answer E (“legally permits such motorcycles but fines riders who commit traffic violations”) almost says: Roman law “legally permits such” blackmails “but fines” blackmailers “who commit” the crime of taking actions that harm others. Is this a problem that you could easily get wrong if you make the wrong assumption? How do we know how to make the “right” assumptions?

Thank you,
Jared

[Steve Stein]

Interesting discussion! I think the issue here is whether blackmail can be objectively said to cause harm--and it can, which is why it is illegal. Harm is presumed, and was also presumed by the Romans (the author of the passage appears to agree as well):

Their assumption—true enough, it seems—was that a victim of blackmail would be harmed if shameful but private information were revealed to the world.

The threat of harm, and the existence of a victim, are factors that define the act as blackmail. A legal use of information to get what you want, or one that didn't cause any harm, would not be referred to as blackmail--it might instead be called leverage, the same way that a justified homicide is not called murder. Blackmail, on the other hand, is considered harmful regardless of the possible existence of people who might not mind that much. Analogously, if, lacking both provocation and justification, you kill someone who doesn't value life at all, it's still considered murder, and an unprovoked physical attack on a masochist is an assault--even if the masochist doesn't really mind.

Let me know whether this makes sense--thanks!

~Steve

[jared.xu]

Hi Steve,

Thank you for the explanation which is really illuminating. Though, it seems to me this specific question demands some degree of background knowledge in law so that we could make the necessary inferences to obtain the correct answer.

Jared

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Jared,

I wouldn't agree with that statement. Steve used his knowledge of the law to help explain the problem, but the fact that blackmail is a crime--and the makers of the LSAT would consider that commonsense knowledge--is enough to say that blackmail causes harm.

Thanks!

[alee]

Hi,

Regarding PT 65, Section 3 and Q19, why is the following the correct option:

D: One country makes it illegal for felons to own guns; another has no such ban because it makes gun ownership illegal for everyone but police and the military.

I take it that:
- a ban on guns = making blackmail a crime

However, to what exactly is 'gun ownership illegal for everyone but police & the military' analogous? Is it that the 'revelation of shameful information' (i.e. what is considered a crime in US/Canadian law), was considered illegal 'prima facie' (line 42) in Roman law, *except* if it was in the public interest to reveal such information. So there was an exception to the general rule in Roman law, just as there is an exception to a general ban on gun ownership (if you're a policeman/military).

Is that right?
Thanks!

[Steve Stein]

Hi,

Thanks for your question. The scenario is analogous as stated in the first sentence of Passage B: Unlike US and Canada, Roman law needed no category for blackmail, because it was considered illegal for all but very narrow exceptions.

I hope that clears it up--let me know. thanks!

~Steve

[alee]

fantastic, that discussion really clarifies things