#4 - Specific Reference, Parallel, Subject Perspective

[Administrator]

Please post your questions below!

[BostonLawGuy]

Greetings,

I am having a hard time with this question which I got wrong on the actual LSAT.

The correct answer choice indicates that TWO parties are held responsible ( the newspaper and the columnist ) yet in the passage I am not sure how analogous it is. No where in the passage does it describe anything about one person, let alone two being "responsible." And I could not find textual support for two persons being found guilty or wrong or adversely affected.

The contracts were deemed unconstitutional which seems to imply that only the contract holder was affected, which is one person, not two.

I'm sure that I am missing something but I just can't figure it out.

[Malila Robinson]

Hi BostonLawGuy,
The attribution principle essentially states that not only the smaller entity, but also the larger governing entity will be responsible for a wrong if it violates the larger entities' rules. In the passage it relates to the fact that a private contact (the smaller entity) could be voided if it violated State law (the larger entity).
In Answer C the columnist is the smaller entity, and the newspaper is the larger governing entity.
Your question focuses on who can be held responsible, but keep in mind there cannot be a court case if no one is responsible. So initially the 'person' responsible is the smaller entity, but due to the attribution property the larger entity would become responsible because it would be charged with enforcing the contract (or whatever was in question).
Hope that helps!
-Malila

[IneedLSAThelp]

Hm, I don't get that rationale. I interpreted that para as saying that it cannot enforce something if it is illegal. How does that translate into if something is legal, then both the smaller and larger entities are responsible?

[Malila Robinson]

Hi IneedLSAThelp,
Some of the restrictive covenants were legal for the 'small entities' and the people they contracted with because they were private transactions, BUT judicial enforcement of the restrictive covenants was illegal at the 'big entity' (State/Federal) level because of the 14th Amendment. The attribution property says that if it is illegal for the 'big entity' then it is illegal for the 'small entity'.
So what was technically legal at the small entity level became illegal because of the big entity level.
Hope that helps!
-Malila

[klaq15]

On this problem, I came down to A and C and ultimately chose A. I understand why C is correct, but can you clarify a bit on why A is wrong? The trucking company would clearly be analogous to the state (big entity), and then to me the trucks were all those private property contracts (small entities) and then when things go wrong it's up to the trucking company to clean up the mess.

[Adam Tyson]

A is a bit of a trap answer, klaq15, and one that is easy to fall for. What's the attribution issue in the passage about? It's about a court getting involved in a private matter, and in the process becoming responsible for it. In other words, if you are not initially involved, but then you get involved, you take on some of the responsibility. There's your prephrase!

The trucking company is already involved - it's their trucks we are talking about. Also, it's not about them getting involved, but about them trying to keep their distance, not doing the inspections instead of doing them. This is the opposite of what we are looking for! Instead, we should want to see something like a third-party inspector looking over the trucks, and in so doing becoming responsible for any problems they miss. It wasn't their problem to begin with, but once they involved themselves by doing an inspection they suddenly share the blame for problems. That would be more like the attribution idea in the passage. See the difference?

[heartofsunshine]

Hello,

I chose D on this one. I can see why C is right but I didn't see both the state actor and the writer of the contract being held responsible, I took the "attribution" rationale to mean that the actor was the state vs private person. So when D says "If a person is in a position to rescue someone in peril (state in a position someone from the covenant), that person (state) can be held responsible for the injuries of the person. Can you help? Thanks!

[James Finch]

Hi Heart of Sunshine,

If we carry the analogy a little further, (D) becomes clearly incorrect: the potential rescuer (state courts) aren't being threatened with potential liability for the damages done to the individuals in peril, who may or may not have been put there by other private actors, but rather saying that they cannot be used to enforce unconstitutional actions of private actors. (D) also clearly lacks the private third party element: we have the state courts and the harmed individuals, but not the private actors doing the harm.

Hope this clears things up!

[LSAT1996]

I got this answer correct, but my thinking was very different in why I chose this answer. I was thinking something like this:

It seems that these covenants by themselves were perfectly legal and what made it illegal was the judicial enforcement of it that would fall on the State. It seems like here that enforcement is key in understanding how to choose the right answer. The covenants were legal but enforcing them would violate the Fourteen Amendment and the responsibility would fall on the state. So, when looking at the answers, I thought that answer C captured this in the sense that neither the columnist nor the company would bear any responsibility if the piece wasn't published, but if the piece gets published or in other words enforced, then the responsibility would fall on both of them. Although I still feel a bit unsure about this. Please let me know if this is at least semi-correct. Thanks!