#16 - Judge: The defendant admits noncompliance with

[Erik Shum]

Hi Cascott,

I'm not sure if that your belief is strictly correct (I think a judge would be very sympathetic, if the statute provided the judge any discretion, where the defendant's breach of code was the product of honest misunderstanding. Consider how much discretion is granted a judge in some contexts to let a defendant off with a warning. They're still found to have broken the law in those cases, but are spared the penalty. Conversely, a judge would be very interested if a defendant was flagrantly in violation of the code, despite numerous warnings). But that is really besides the point and a test taker's detailed knowledge of the justice system is never really the focus of an LSAT question.

If your answer choice relies upon information that: (a) isn't provided by the LSAT, (b) is not common knowledge among your peers and (c) you are uncertain about the accuracy of, that information is not likely required for you to arrive at the correct answer and may even mislead you.

I hope that helps you avoid similar confusion in the future. If you are looking for specific help addressing this question, let me know!

[Albertlyu]

I think from the context, we need the local codes to cover all and also be broader than the national codes, therefore if national-->local.

[PresidentLSAT]

Hi,

I have a question about D. Would the answer been correct if it read,

"ignorance of the appropriate applicable code is not an excuse for noncompliance," would it be right. Essentially, the judge is basing her ruling on the defendant violating a code. She rejects the defendant's reasoning as insufficient because despite not knowing the difference, a violation has still occurred because the national code is a bigger umbrella.

[Adam Tyson]

While that altered version of the answer would probably lead to the defendant being found liable for noncompliance, PresidentLSAT, it wouldn't answer the question, which is about supporting the judge's reasoning. The judge isn't reasoning that ignorance is no excuse. The judge is saying that ignorance MIGHT be an excuse if the issue was the local code, but it is not an excuse because the issue is the national code. To support that reasoning we need something that says that violating the national code would also mean violating the local code. In other words, the defendant would be in the wrong no matter which code applied, so ignorance of which code applied became irrelevant. That's what the judge is basing her reasoning on, and so that is what we must support.

[LawSchoolDream]

I'm a little confused with this stimulus. Why is the excuse okay if local code is applied but not when it's national. Isn't that primarily what his defense is? That he didn't know WHICH code applied?

The judge saying this excuse works with local code is also throwing me off... ?

[Chandler H]

Hi there, LawSchoolDream!

You're asking the right questions. Since this is a Principle Question, we're trying to find a principle that will help explain the judge's reasoning. Let's review the judge's argument:

Premise 1: The defendant admits to noncompliance with national codes.
Premise 2: The defendant's excuse is that he was confused whether national or local codes applied.
Conclusion: The defendant's excuse is unacceptable.

We're trying to find the "missing piece" that connects the two premises to the conclusion. What makes the defendant's excuse unacceptable?

Answer choice (C) tells us that "any behavior required by national codes is also required by local codes." If this principle is true, then, if you're following the local codes, you must be following the national codes. We can negate that statement and say that if you're not following the national codes, you are not following the local codes.

If conditional reasoning is helpful for you, that statement would look something like this:

FLC FNC
FNC FLC

Therefore, if the defendant was not following national codes, then he couldn't have been following local codes, either. He could not possibly have been confused about which codes applied to him, because he wasn't even following the most basic, universal code!

Does that make sense?