#27 - Must Be True, Author's/Subject Perspective

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation
(See the complete passage discussion here: lsat/viewtopic.php?t=10837)

The correct answer choice is (E)

This fairly unique question asks for the answer choice that would be accepted by North and Weingast, but rejected by the author. While it may be tempting to move right on and react to the answer choices one by one, take a moment to consider the context in which North and Weingast were mentioned by the author: the two pointed out that when the Crown’s purse strings were controlled by Parliament, it was able to benefit, by securing more favorable borrowing terms (the author of the passage goes on to say that the problem has not been solved, but has instead merely shifted to Parliament).

Answer choice (A): All parties involved would agree with this statement, so it cannot be the correct answer choice.

Answer choice (B): Neither the author of the passage nor the two authors referenced would agree with this broad statement, so this choice should be ruled out of contention.

Answer choice (C): The author of the passage would agree with this statement, as would North and Weingast, so this cannot be the right answer to the question in this case.


Answer choice (D): There is no reason to believe that anyone involved (the author of the passage, nor North and Weingast) would reject this notion, so this cannot be the right answer choice and should be ruled out of contention.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. As discussed above, North and Weingast point out that handing over the purse strings to Parliament was beneficial to the crown, but the author goes on to say that the problem was not solved, but only shifted, confirming this as the correct answer choice.

[TheKingLives]

I'm seeing how broad B is, but I still selected it because I felt North and Weingast were using the example of the British monarch to make a larger generality that constitutional arrangements have ended the paradox problem for monarchs. Is this unsupported by the passage? I thought paragraph 6 supported this but it looks like the passage is less broad in its proclamation. I totally see why E is correct, but I couldn't make the leap that "sovereign" entities could include institutions as well as actual people. Is this correct? If so I'll remember that moving forward.

[Paul Marsh]

Hi TheKingLives! Great username for this particular passage.

As mentioned above, Answer Choice (B) is far too broad; there is no indication in the passage that North and Weingast would agree that the paradox of omnipotence is no longer a practical problem for any actual government. You said that paragraph 6 may have supported (B) - I assume you're talking about the first sentence: "Thanks to North, Weingast, and others writing in the same vein, it is now conventional to hold that constitutional arrangements benefit sovereigns by limiting their power." But nowhere does it say that North and Weingast believe all governments in fact have such a constitutional arrangement (indeed, several countries today are still classified as absolute monarchies, e.g. Saudi Arabia). Thus to say that North and Weingast believe no government has a paradox of omnipotence problem would be to incorrectly infer beyond what is in the passage.

I totally see why E is correct, but I couldn't make the leap that "sovereign" entities could include institutions as well as actual people. Is this correct? If so I'll remember that moving forward.

Sovereign in the passage (and just in general) refers to an individual monarch. So if you're asking whether Parliament is included under the umbrella of a sovereign, the answer would be no. (Parliament has sovereignty, but it is not a sovereign!) But that doesn't that the author of our passage would likely agree with (E) - the constitutional settlement did not solve the problems with sovereign omnipotence, it merely transferred those problems to another source.

Hope that helps!

[mollylynch]

Hi! I selected D because of the second to last paragraph that states "North and Weingast argue that the constitutional settlement imposed in England by the Glorious Revolution of 1688 halted such faithless conduct." Is this correct reasoning? Thanks!

[Jeff Wren]

Hi Molly,

Question 27 is asking for an answer that North and Weingast would agree with, but the author would not.

Here, we need to find a point in the passage where the author clearly disagrees with North and Weingast.

The problem with Answer D is that it gives a basically factual statement that the author would agree with as well as North and Weingast. The author mostly agrees with the North and Weingast until lines 52-54 "But such scholars (meaning North and Weingast among others) neglect the extent to which constitutions to fail in this regard." The word "but" is a clue that the author is disagreeing with North and Weingast at this point.

Answer E captures this disagreement, which makes it the correct answer.