Many legal theorists have argued that the only morally legitimate goal

Question

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.    1 
 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 
 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 
 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 
 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 
 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 
 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

Saasingh · Answer

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

DwightScruthe · Answer

can you please just explain the para briefly so I can check on my own understanding? Thank you!

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Passage Map and Summary

The  Topic  is criminal penalties for behavior, and the  Scope  is best defined by the question implicitly posed in  paragraph 1: “When is it legitimate to punish people for what they do?”  Before paragraph 1 ends it’s clear that the author holds a wider view than that held by legal theorists who believe that the only answer is,  “when it would clearly prevent harm to others.”  The author takes issue with the adverb  “clearly.”  His  Purpose,  implied in  lines 7–11 , is to explain how punishment can be justified even when the prevention of harm isn’t quite so clear cut.

The first case, explained at length in  paragraph 2 , is a bit muddy until the  “For example”  Keywords that blessedly come along in  line 16.  The gist of the paragraph is that sometimes it’s necessary to enforce a rule inducing everyone to behave in the same way, because failing to set such a rule would cause harm. And when you think about it, you see what the author means. Although the behaviors of burglary and assault clearly cause harm to others, the mere behavior of driving on the “wrong” side of the road doesn’t necessarily do so. But if there were no rule at all—if there were no agreed-upon  “right side” —what chaos would result! So here’s one case in which punishment would be justified even though  “preventing harm”  isn’t as clear cut. We might think of it as  “the harm of uncoordination.”

The second case, in  paragraph 3 , goes beyond the mere  “harm of uncoordination” (lines 33–35) , and again we get a concrete example for clarification. On the surface, an athlete’s taking steroids surely doesn’t harm anyone directly. But as the author points out, that behavior puts other competitors in the loselose situation of  “either endangering their health or losing their fair opportunity to win” (lines 44–46) , a double whammy of harm that’s reason enough to use punishment as a way of coercing athletes not to dope up. We might think of this as a case of  “complex, indirect harm,”  and our marginal Roadmap ends up looking like so:

Para 1:  Why punish: prevent harm (1–7); a broader view (7–11)

Para 2:  The harm of uncoordination/driving ex.

Para 3:  Complex indirect harm/steroids ex.

Solenja · Answer

Can anyone please explain the fifth and sixth questions.
Thanks

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Explanation

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?

Difficulty Level:   700+

Explanation

Most people just see the reference to  paragraph 2 , but those sensitive to question stem Hot Words will have noticed the phrase  “problem of coordination,”  a phrase that appears only in  lines 27–28.  This is our signal to pore over the context that’s right there, namely  lines 26–32 , and the gist is that potential harm comes not from a particular act but from  “the lack of a coordinating rule.”  To extend it to the driving example, there’s no inherent harm in one person’s driving anywhere on the road he chooses; the potential harm would come from there being no coordinated decision as to the  “correct”  side (images of cars smashing into or narrowly avoiding each other come to mind).

If we go looking for an example of an act which is not harmful in itself but which could lead to chaos in the absence of coordination, we must be drawn to  (E) . The pilot’s choosing any altitude is analogous to the driver’s choosing any part of the road, and the rule requiring different altitudes is of course analogous to the rule specifying which road side is  “correct.”  Other choices offer coordination examples, but not in the context of  paragraph 2:

(A)  Certainly digging for artifacts is an act not harmful in itself. But to be correct,  (A)  would have to present a situation whereby absolutely uncontrolled digging would cause harm to others, and you really have to strain and entertain lots of assumptions and  “what if’s”  to make that case here.

(B)  offers two opposing determiners of behavior, the prescribing physicians vs. the needy customers; the pharmacist is simply the middleman, unlike the motorist who’s literally  “in the driver’s seat”  in  paragraph 2. (B)  would be closer if it contrasted a single pharmacist’s filling any Rx he desired with the chaos of every pharmacist’s doing likewise.

(C)  By simply referring to a requirement for substantiation in contrast with uncontrolled free speech,  (C)  lacks the central element of the given situation, namely the behavior of a single actor (“actor” in the sense of someone committing an act) vs. the uncontrolled behavior of all actors.

(D)  certainly compares a single actor’s behavior to the controlled behavior of all. But what  “harm to others”  is presented by all employees’  “wearing whatever clothes they choose” ? None.  (D) ’s is not a rule that the author could support, in contrast with (E)’s, which the author would certainly support in order to avoid the disastrous effects of a lack of coordination.

Answer: E

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Explanation

6. In line 54, the author uses the expression “somewhat complex” primarily to describe reasoning that

Difficulty Level:   700

Explanation

In context,  line 54  is part of a long sentence whose purpose is to sum up the idea that  paragraph 3’s  steroids example is a case of a rule that’s imposed to prevent harm to others (i.e., the opponents of a doping athlete), but is a less clear-cut instance of same. As  (C)  has it, prohibiting the use of steroids is only indirectly related to—hence  “is more complex than” —preventing the harm that doping would cause to others.

(A)  No explicit contrast between public and private sectors is part of the author’s argument.

(B) “Understanding motivation”  is a concept raised in the previous sentence  (lines 48–50)  and relates to the consent of athletic competitors to a governing rule. Such consent is, in the author’s view, common to both simple and  “somewhat complex”  cases of preventing harm.

(D)  both presents an irrelevant comparison—there’s never any question of anyone’s having to persuade athletes to value health over success—and focuses on the specific case of the steroids instead of the summary of which  line 54  is a part.

(E)  A 180: the steroid prohibition does involve coordination  (lines 36–38) , so the exception  (E)  raises doesn’t exist.

Answer: C

TomKSH · Answer

Sajjad1994  
took me a while to comprehend this passage. 
was wondering if this passage is really 600-700 level. I found it much harder than other passages at the same level and even than a few passages at 700 level.

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Updated.

Thank you!

Ayushi0002 · Answer

In ques 4 I was confused between A and E, though I was inclined to saying A but somehow went for E. Because there rules apply but not in direct prevention of Harm. Can someone elaborate.

Sajjad1994 · Answer

A vs E

The question is asking for the distinction between  paragraph 2  and  3 , and the transitional sentence in  lines 33–35  both sums it up and appears almost verbatim in correct  choice (A).  Both the driving example and the steroids situation are examples of preventing harm, and the big difference between them is that the latter, as the author says,  “goes beyond the simple lack of coordination itself.”

As far as  (E)  is concerned the author uses burglary and assault solely to demonstrate that driving on the  “wrong”  side of the road is inherently less harmful to others than those clear cut examples of criminal behavior. The question implicitly seeks a distinction between the concerns of  paragraph 2  and  3 , and  “burglary and assault”  play no role therein.

Raman109 · Answer

P1 - 
S1 - 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.
What - The author shares the views of "legal theorists." As to what they support. 
Who - Author
Why - It sets the stage for an alternate view or disagreement.

S2 - 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.
What - The author shares what the "legal theorists" do not support. It again highlights the concept of "preventing harm to others."
Who - author.
Why - It sets the stage for a more nuanced application of "criminal penalties" to situations where "preventing harm to others" is not so obvious or immediately apparent.

S3 - 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.
What - Contrast with "but." It builds upon S2 and shares that legal sanctions can also be applied to some non-conforming behaviors in the same spirit of preventing harm to others, but that connection is not so obvious. 
Who - Author
Why - Main conclusion of the author.

P2 - 
S4 - 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.

S5- (15) In the simplest cases, a mere coordination of
activities is itself the good that results.

S6 - 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.

S7 - Any fair rule, then, would be better than no rule
at all.

S8 - 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.

S9 - 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.

What - The author explains that while the connection between the behaviors that require coordination and the application of "criminal penalties" or "legal sanctions" is not as direct as it's between criminal penalties and burglary or assault inherently, if there is no law in cases that require coordination, it'll be very harmful or detrimental for the people so in that sense these laws help prevent the harm, which justifies the application of "criminal penalties" or "legal sanctions" to the cases requiring coordination. 
Who - Author. 
Why - Explain the nuanced connection between "criminal penalties" or "legal sanctions" and cases that require coordination - for the benefit of people, and why the application of the "criminal penalties" or "legal sanctions" in such cases is applicable in a more indirect way.

P3 - 
S10- 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.
What - The author shares examples similar to those described in P2. Still, the magnitude or complexity of the harm prevented is much larger in terms of overall competition spirit, societal norms, and so on.  
Who - Author 
Why - Give another example to show the applicability of "criminal penalties" or "legal sanctions" in cases that require coordination, but the harm being prevented is much more nuanced.

S11 - This can be illustrated by an example of a
coordination rule—instituted by a private athletic
organization—which has analogies in criminal law.

S12 - At issue is whether the use of anabolic steroids, which
(40) build muscular strength but have serious negative side
effects, should be prohibited.

S13 - Each athlete has at stake
both an interest in having a fair opportunity to win
and an interest in good health.

S14 - If some competitors
use steroids, others have the option of either
(45) endangering their health or losing their fair
opportunity to win.

S15 - Thus they would be harmed either
way. A compulsory rule could prevent that harm and
thus would be in the interest of all competitors.

S16 - If
they understand its function and trust the techniques
(50) for its enforcement, they will gladly consent to it.

S17 - 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.

What - the author shares that at first, the "criminal penalties" or "legal sanctions" in such cases may look like more of a benefit, but in essence, they prevent harm in terms of fairness and integrity of the competition as a whole. 
Who - Author
Why - Just like P2, another way to substantiate S3, the main conclusion.

Many legal theorists have argued that the only morally legitimate goal

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Reading Comprehension (RC) Questions

Many legal theorists have argued that the only morally legitimate goal

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards