New legislation would require a seven?day waiting period in the sale of handguns to private individuals, in order tha...
SilviaMay 19, 2020
Explanation for Incorrect Answers
Hi LSATMax,
I understand why the answer is "B" but could someone please explain why the other answer choices are incorrect?
I chose "C" because the word "nothing" in choice "B" made it sound too restrictive.
Thank you,
Reply
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
Thanks for the question! So let’s take a look at the passage here. We’re told that legislation would institute a seven-day waiting period when handguns are sold to people. This is so prison records could be checked. But some people are opposed to the legislation because prison records are full of errors, so as many law-abiding citizens as criminals would be prevented from buying the guns.
Now we’re asked to find a principle that, if we assumed it were established, would do the most to strengthen the opposition to the legislation. Let’s take a look at (B) first. If we could establish that nothing should be done to restrict potential criminals at the cost of placing restrictions on law-abiding citizens, then the opposition argument would definitely be strengthened. After all, this is clearly something that places restrictions on law-abiding citizens. It is true that “nothing” is a very restrictive term here, but in the context of this question, that restrictiveness is what makes it strengthen the opposition’s argument the most strongly.
Now let’s take a look at (C), which is the answer you selected. Even if it were true that legislation shouldn’t be enacted if no benefit could accrue to society as a result of it, that wouldn’t apply to this legislation, since the opposition isn’t denying that there are certain benefits to society (like criminals not getting guns). It’s saying there are side effects that are bad. And so (C) doesn’t apply here.
(A) is wrong because even if it were true that one group’s rights is more worthy of protection than another, it could still be the case that both groups are worthy of protection, or even that neither group is worthy of protection. (A) doesn’t necessarily get us to the opposition’s conclusion, and definitely not as well as (B) does, so (A) is out.
(D) actually works against the opposition, since if (D) were established, it would allow for placing the restrictions on handguns.
(E) is wrong because the passage doesn’t discuss adequate training, so it’s irrelevant to the opposition’s argument.
Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.
