#16 - Must Be True

[Administrator]

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

The correct answer choice is (A)

The correct answer to this Global Reference, Must Be True question will be the only one that
passes the Fact Test, the only choice that can be confirmed by the information presented in the two
passages.

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. The second passage discusses the fact that
the burden was on the person threatening to make the embarrassing disclosure to show that the state
had an interest in learning of the revelations in question. The author specifically mentions that truth
does not constitute legal privilege, implying the lack of free speech protections.

Answer choice (B): The second passage is the one that discusses Classical Roman law, but the author
does not explore the issue of how common the practice was in Ancient Rome as compared with
modern times.

Answer choice (C): This statement is far too broad to be supported by the passages, whose
discussions are limited to the issue of blackmail.

Answer choice (D): The first passage, which deals with U.S. and Canadian common law, does not
present potential harm as the best justification for the illegality of blackmail; rather, the first author
believes that the wrongness of the act is rooted in its triangular structure.

Answer choice (E): The passages make no suggestion that this interest is not recognized by common
law.

[reop6780]

The correct answer is A.

I could not reach the correct answer at all.

Can I conclude that free speech protection is not an issue in Roman law (in passage B) that was only explained in passage A?

Where do I specifically find the inference for this?

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi reop6780,

Answer choice (A) is directly supported by lines 32-37, and strongly implied by the discussion in the second paragraph in Passage B.

In the first paragraph, the author clearly states that there was no category for blackmail in classical Roman law, which is why we can infer that there was no "blackmail paradox." This is because the only consideration relevant to Roman jurists was whether defendant's actions would cause harm: if the shame would cause harm to the victim, then the threatened act of revelation is deemed unlawful (lines 41 - 43). The author elaborates on this point in the third paragraph, remarking that revelations of shameful information was protected "only if the revelation had been made for a legitimate purpose and dealt with a matter that the public authorities had an interest in having revealed" (lines 52-56). Clearly, then, there were no free speech protections in Roman law comparable to those in Canadian and U.S. common law, proving the justification in the second part of answer choice (A).

Hope this helps! Let us know.

Thanks!

[LustingFor!L]

Can you explain why E is wrong. Rereading the passage I can clearly see why A is a better answer, but having trouble seeing red flags with E. I was thinking that passage 2 recognizes that their could be valuable information being revealed via blackmail to public authorities(lines 55-56) and there was no mention of it in passage 1 US and Canadian law. Is it because not mentioning it does not mean they do not recognize it and I have no way of knowing if they do or do not?

[Luke Haqq]

Yes, your intuition is correct. The red flag with answer (E) is that it's on a topic that is discussed in Passage B, but not Passage A. Given that, we have no way of knowing whether or not Canadian/U.S. common law is like/unlike Roman law in that respect.

The point you realized--that we can't know that (E) is true because the topic isn't mentioned in one of the passages--is definitely an important point to remember for the comparative reading comprehension passages. While some questions might be about one of the passages solely, many questions focus on how the two passages relate in terms of similarities and differences in structure, tone, etc. Additionally, it's an important thing to keep in mind on point-at-issue questions in the logical reasoning section.

[ronibass]

I chose answer choice E. I had a question, if we cannot know whether Canadian/U.S. law is like Roman law with recognizing the interest of public authorities in having information revealed, then how can we know answer choice A, because I see free speech mentioned in the first passage but not the second one? So how can we be sure free speech protections comparable to those in Canadian and U.S. law were not an issue? Basically I still cannot see why answer choice A is better than answer choice E.

[Paul Marsh]

Hi Roni! When a Reading Comprehension question asks something along the lines of "Which of the following is most strongly supported by the information given in the passage(s)," we need to be able to point to something concrete in the passage that justifies our answer choice. So choosing an answer choice because something was not mentioned won't fly; there's nothing concrete we can point to. Similarly, an opinion that just seems like it might be something the author would agree with isn't a good answer choice either. Again, we need clear, specific support in the passage for our answer.

For answer choice (E), there is nothing concrete we can point to in the passage that supports the inference that Canadian and US common law do not recognize the interest of public authorities in having certain types of information revealed. (Side note - as you'll no doubt learn about in law school, US common law is in fact very friendly to that interest!) Passage A not specifically mentioning the interest of public authorities is not concrete support that the interest isn't recognized.

However, we can point to specific language in the passage that supports answer choice (A). Passage B says, "Even if it were true, the revelation of shameful information was protected only if the revelation had been made for a legitimate purpose and dealt with a matter that the public authorities had an interest in having revealed." That sentence tells us that saying something shameful in Rome (even if it had nothing to do with blackmail, and even it it was true) was illegal unless it had a legitimate purpose and helped public authorities. This is very strong support for the notion that free speech was not protected in Rome in the same it is in the US and Canada.

So there is specific, concrete support in the passage for (A) but not (E). I hope that helps!