Forum Home > GMAT > Quantitative > Problem Solving (PS)
Events & Promotions
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Aug 2211:00 AM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
More and more TTP students are earning impressive scores on the GMAT. Now is the perfect time to join the many GMAT students who made the switch to TTP and surpassed their wildest expectations on test day.
Aug 2910:00 PM IST
-11:30 PM IST
With brand new features like:AI-driven Planner tool, 850+ data Insights practice questions and GMAT Focus Edition Adaptive mock tests with ESR+ analysis and personal mentor support, our course is the most comprehensive course for GMAT Focus Edition.
Aug 3112:00 PM EDT
-03:00 PM EDT
Save 20% on Target Test Prep and Score in the 100th Percentile in GMAT Verbal! Our course uses techniques such as topical study and spaced repetition to maximize knowledge retention and make studying simple and fun.
Aug 3103:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
For a limited time use code FALL20 to save on prep. Valid on Complete Course, Advanced Course, Bootcamp Course, Tutoring, and the Executive Assessment Course. This discount ends September 16th.
Sep 0212:01 AM PDT
-11:59 PM PDT
On Monday the 2nd, GMAT Club Tests will be Absolutely Free! Including all the Quizzes, Questions, and Tests. 12 AM - 11:59 PM PST- Sep 07
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this session to learn how to Deconstruct arguments, Pre-Think Author’s Assumptions, and apply Negation Test.
GRE Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Posts: 14003
Given Kudos: 5849
GPA: 3.62
Many legal theorists have argued that the only morally legitimate goal
[#permalink]
19 Aug 2021, 21:00
19 Aug 2021, 21:00
21
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
Question 1
00:00
A
B
C
D
E
Difficulty:
75%
(hard)
based on 234 sessions
51% (03:19) correct
49%
(03:24) wrong
Question 2
00:00
A
B
C
D
E
Difficulty:
55%
(hard)
based on 327 sessions
53% (01:30) correct 47%
(01:49) wrong
Question 3
00:00
A
B
C
D
E
Difficulty:
95%
(hard)
based on 284 sessions
43% (02:08) correct 57%
(02:00) wrong
Question 4
00:00
A
B
C
D
E
Difficulty:
45%
(medium)
based on 275 sessions
56% (01:16) correct 44%
(01:13) wrong
Question 5
00:00
A
B
C
D
E
Difficulty:
55%
(hard)
based on 243 sessions
59% (01:31) correct 41%
(01:39) wrong
Question 6
00:00
A
B
C
D
E
Difficulty:
55%
(hard)
based on 239 sessions
60% (01:33) correct 40%
(01:34) wrong Many legal theorists have argued that the only
morally legitimate goal in imposing criminal penalties
against certain behaviors is to prevent people from
harming others. Clearly, such theorists would oppose
(5) laws that force people to act purely for their own
good or to refrain from certain harmless acts purely
to ensure conformity to some social norm. But the
goal of preventing harm to others would also justify
legal sanctions against some forms of nonconforming
(10) behavior to which this goal might at first seem not to
apply.
In many situations it is in the interest of each
member of a group to agree to behave in a certain
way on the condition that the others similarly agree.
(15) In the simplest cases, a mere coordination of
activities is itself the good that results. For example,
it is in no one’s interest to lack a convention about
which side of the road to drive on, and each person
can agree to drive on one side assuming the others do
(20) too. Any fair rule, then, would be better than no rule
at all. On the assumption that all people would
voluntarily agree to be subject to a coordination rule
backed by criminal sanctions, if people could be
assured that others would also agree, it is argued to
(25) be legitimate for a legislature to impose such a rule.
This is because prevention of harm underlies the
rationale for the rule, though it applies to the problem
of coordination less directly than to other problems,
for the act that is forbidden (driving on the other side
(30) of the road) is not inherently harm-producing, as are
burglary and assault; instead, it is the lack of a
coordinating rule that would be harmful.
In some other situations involving a need for
legally enforced coordination, the harm to be averted
(35) goes beyond the simple lack of coordination itself.
This can be illustrated by an example of a
coordination rule—instituted by a private athletic
organization—which has analogies in criminal law. At
issue is whether the use of anabolic steroids, which
(40) build muscular strength but have serious negative side
effects, should be prohibited. Each athlete has at stake
both an interest in having a fair opportunity to win
and an interest in good health. If some competitors
use steroids, others have the option of either
(45) endangering their health or losing their fair
opportunity to win. Thus they would be harmed either
way. A compulsory rule could prevent that harm and
thus would be in the interest of all competitors. If
they understand its function and trust the techniques
(50) for its enforcement, they will gladly consent to it. So
while it might appear that such a rule merely forces
people to act for their own good, the deeper rationale
for coercion here—as in the above example—is a
somewhat complex appeal to the legitimacy of
(55) enforcing a rule with the goal of preventing harm.
morally legitimate goal in imposing criminal penalties
against certain behaviors is to prevent people from
harming others. Clearly, such theorists would oppose
(5) laws that force people to act purely for their own
good or to refrain from certain harmless acts purely
to ensure conformity to some social norm. But the
goal of preventing harm to others would also justify
legal sanctions against some forms of nonconforming
(10) behavior to which this goal might at first seem not to
apply.
In many situations it is in the interest of each
member of a group to agree to behave in a certain
way on the condition that the others similarly agree.
(15) In the simplest cases, a mere coordination of
activities is itself the good that results. For example,
it is in no one’s interest to lack a convention about
which side of the road to drive on, and each person
can agree to drive on one side assuming the others do
(20) too. Any fair rule, then, would be better than no rule
at all. On the assumption that all people would
voluntarily agree to be subject to a coordination rule
backed by criminal sanctions, if people could be
assured that others would also agree, it is argued to
(25) be legitimate for a legislature to impose such a rule.
This is because prevention of harm underlies the
rationale for the rule, though it applies to the problem
of coordination less directly than to other problems,
for the act that is forbidden (driving on the other side
(30) of the road) is not inherently harm-producing, as are
burglary and assault; instead, it is the lack of a
coordinating rule that would be harmful.
In some other situations involving a need for
legally enforced coordination, the harm to be averted
(35) goes beyond the simple lack of coordination itself.
This can be illustrated by an example of a
coordination rule—instituted by a private athletic
organization—which has analogies in criminal law. At
issue is whether the use of anabolic steroids, which
(40) build muscular strength but have serious negative side
effects, should be prohibited. Each athlete has at stake
both an interest in having a fair opportunity to win
and an interest in good health. If some competitors
use steroids, others have the option of either
(45) endangering their health or losing their fair
opportunity to win. Thus they would be harmed either
way. A compulsory rule could prevent that harm and
thus would be in the interest of all competitors. If
they understand its function and trust the techniques
(50) for its enforcement, they will gladly consent to it. So
while it might appear that such a rule merely forces
people to act for their own good, the deeper rationale
for coercion here—as in the above example—is a
somewhat complex appeal to the legitimacy of
(55) enforcing a rule with the goal of preventing harm.
1. Which one of the following most accurately states the main point of the passage?
(A) In order to be morally justifiable, laws prohibiting activities that are not inherently harm-producing must apply equitably to everyone.
(B) It is justifiable to require social conformity where noncompliance would be harmful to either the nonconforming individual or the larger group.
(C) Achieving coordination can be argued to be a morally legitimate justification for rules that prevent directly harmful actions and others that prevent indirectly harmful actions.
(D) It is reasonable to hold that restricting individual liberty is always justified on the basis of mutually agreed-upon community standards.
(E) The principle of preventing harm to others can be used to justify laws that do not at first glance appear to be designed to prevent such harm.
2. It can be most reasonably inferred from the passage that the author considers which one of the following factors to be generally necessary for the justification of rules compelling coordination of people’s activities?
(A) evidence that such rules do not force individuals to act for their own good
(B) enactment of such rules by a duly elected or appointed government lawmaking organization
(C) the assurance that criminal penalties are provided as a means of securing compliance with such rules
(D) some form of consent on the part of rational people who are subject to such rules
(E) a sense of community and cultural uniformity among those who are required to abide by such rules
3. It can be most reasonably inferred from the passage that the author would agree with which one of the following statements?
(A) In all situations in which compulsory rules are needed for the coordination of human activities, any uniformly enforced rule is as acceptable as any other.
(B) No private organizational rules designed to coordinate the activities of members have as complex a relation to the goal of preventing harm as have some criminal statutes.
(C) Every fair rule that could be effectively used to prescribe which side of the road to drive on is a rule whose implementation would likely cause less harm than it would prevent.
(D) There would be little need for formal regulation and enforcement of conventional driving patterns if all drivers understood and accepted the rationale behind such regulation and enforcement.
(E) Unlike rules forbidding such acts as burglary and assault, those that are designed primarily to prevent the inconvenience and chaos of uncoordinated activities should not involve criminal penalties.
4. The author distinguishes between two examples of coordinating rules on the basis of whether or not such rules
(A) prevent some harm beyond that which consists simply in a lack of coordination
(B) are intended to ensure conformity to a set of agreed-upon standards
(C) are voluntarily agreed upon by all those affected by such rules
(D) could be considered justifiable by the legal theorists discussed in the passage
(E) apply less directly to the problem of preventing harm than do rules against burglary and assault
5. Which one of the following is a rule that primarily addresses a problem of coordination most similar to that discussed in the second paragraph?
(A) a rule requiring that those who wish to dig for ancient artifacts secure the permission of relevant authorities and the owners of the proposed site before proceeding with their activities
(B) a rule requiring that pharmacists dispense certain kinds of medications only when directed to do so by physicians’ prescriptions, rather than simply selling medicines at the customers’ request
(C) a rule requiring that advertisers be able to substantiate the claims they make in advertisements, rather than simply saying whatever they think will help to attract customers
(D) a rule requiring that employees of a certain restaurant all wear identical uniforms during their hours of employment, rather than wearing whatever clothes they choose
(E) a rule requiring different aircraft to fly at different altitudes rather than flying at any altitude their pilots wish
6. In line 54, the author uses the expression “somewhat complex” primarily to describe reasoning that
(A) involves two layers of law, one governing the private sector and the other governing the public sector
(B) requires that those affected by the rule understand the motivation behind its imposition
(C) involves a case in which a harm to be prevented is indirectly related to the kind of act that is to be prohibited
(D) can convince athletes that their health is as important as their competitive success
(E) illustrates how appeals to the need for coordination can be used to justify many rules that do not involve coordination
- Source: LSAT Official PrepTest 46
- Difficulty Level: 700+
RC Butler 2021 - Practice Two RC Questions Everyday.
Passage # 317 Date: 20-Aug-2021
This question is a part of RC Butler 2021. Click here for Details
Passage # 317 Date: 20-Aug-2021
This question is a part of RC Butler 2021. Click here for Details
Re: Many legal theorists have argued that the only morally legitimate goal
[#permalink]
20 Aug 2021, 13:37
20 Aug 2021, 13:37
3
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Tough passage. Time -- 14:48
1. E - clearly the goal of writing passage is to show that rules are not just for your own self or for you to be a better person. The rules also apply in situations where LACK of rules can be harmful (indirectly).
2. D - "Any fair rule, then, would be better than no rule at all. On the assumption that all people would voluntarily agree to be subject to a coordination rule backed by criminal sanctions". Agreement to these rules is a prerequisite
3. C - close between A and C. (not sure, I chose C after careful consideration -- took a lot of time here)
(A) In all situations in which compulsory rules are needed for the coordination of human activities, any uniformly enforced rule is as acceptable as any other.
Uniformity in enforced rules is nowhere mentioned. Also, our focus is not when rules are NEEDED, but to focus on how lack of rules can be a problem. Also, "all situations" seems too extreme.
(C) Every fair rule that could be effectively used to prescribe which side of the road to drive on is a rule whose implementation would likely cause less harm than it would prevent.
It could be true. "Every" jumps at me. But here it is restricted by EVERY RULE in that one particular situation mentioned in the passage. So less extreme than A for sure.
Also, it means that the rule would cause less harm than prevent harm (means it will prevent harm --> precisely the theme of para 2).
Also, towards end of para 2 we see "..prevention of harm applies less directly than to other problems". Seems fitting
4. A - Clearly A. Para 3 first line : "In some other situations involving a need for legally enforced coordination, the harm to be averted goes beyond the simple lack of coordination itself."
In para 2, our goal is simply to meeting lack of coordination. Not meeting wouldn't kill anyone, but it'd be good to have these rules here. But in para 3 we are talking about adversities which necessitate the legislation of rules).
5. Clearly E. The whole point is how lack of rules can cause indirect harm to people. E is a major harm. If there are no rules pertaining to flying heights, the consequences could be deadly!
6. C
Contenders B and C, rest can be eliminated easily.
(B) requires that those affected by the rule understand the motivation behind its imposition
True, but is this the reason why author calls the functioning and applicability of these rules to different situations more complex? NOPE.
(C) involves a case in which a harm to be prevented is indirectly related to the kind of act that is to be prohibited
Yes. This is the complexity pertaining to rules. Lack of rules can cause INDIRECT HARMS. And this is what is difficult to explain in terms of legislation (why these rules are needed even though they don't involve any criminal activity or direct harm --> BECAUSE non-conformity in such situations causes indirect harms).
Welcome feedback / questions on my analysis !
BR,
Saakhi
1. E - clearly the goal of writing passage is to show that rules are not just for your own self or for you to be a better person. The rules also apply in situations where LACK of rules can be harmful (indirectly).
2. D - "Any fair rule, then, would be better than no rule at all. On the assumption that all people would voluntarily agree to be subject to a coordination rule backed by criminal sanctions". Agreement to these rules is a prerequisite
3. C - close between A and C. (not sure, I chose C after careful consideration -- took a lot of time here)
(A) In all situations in which compulsory rules are needed for the coordination of human activities, any uniformly enforced rule is as acceptable as any other.
Uniformity in enforced rules is nowhere mentioned. Also, our focus is not when rules are NEEDED, but to focus on how lack of rules can be a problem. Also, "all situations" seems too extreme.
(C) Every fair rule that could be effectively used to prescribe which side of the road to drive on is a rule whose implementation would likely cause less harm than it would prevent.
It could be true. "Every" jumps at me. But here it is restricted by EVERY RULE in that one particular situation mentioned in the passage. So less extreme than A for sure.
Also, it means that the rule would cause less harm than prevent harm (means it will prevent harm --> precisely the theme of para 2).
Also, towards end of para 2 we see "..prevention of harm applies less directly than to other problems". Seems fitting
4. A - Clearly A. Para 3 first line : "In some other situations involving a need for legally enforced coordination, the harm to be averted goes beyond the simple lack of coordination itself."
In para 2, our goal is simply to meeting lack of coordination. Not meeting wouldn't kill anyone, but it'd be good to have these rules here. But in para 3 we are talking about adversities which necessitate the legislation of rules).
5. Clearly E. The whole point is how lack of rules can cause indirect harm to people. E is a major harm. If there are no rules pertaining to flying heights, the consequences could be deadly!
6. C
Contenders B and C, rest can be eliminated easily.
(B) requires that those affected by the rule understand the motivation behind its imposition
True, but is this the reason why author calls the functioning and applicability of these rules to different situations more complex? NOPE.
(C) involves a case in which a harm to be prevented is indirectly related to the kind of act that is to be prohibited
Yes. This is the complexity pertaining to rules. Lack of rules can cause INDIRECT HARMS. And this is what is difficult to explain in terms of legislation (why these rules are needed even though they don't involve any criminal activity or direct harm --> BECAUSE non-conformity in such situations causes indirect harms).
Welcome feedback / questions on my analysis !
BR,
Saakhi
Re: Many legal theorists have argued that the only morally legitimate goal
[#permalink]
02 Jan 2022, 01:23
02 Jan 2022, 01:23
can you please just explain the para briefly so I can check on my own understanding? Thank you!
