LSAT Explanation PT 37, S4, Q21: Political theorist: Newly enacted laws need

LSAT Question Stem

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the political theorist's argument? 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Principle question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is B. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

First, let's summarize and analyze the argument in the passage. The political theorist claims that newly enacted laws need a period of immunity during which they can be repealed only if circumstances are dire. This is based on two premises: 1) short-term consequences of statutory changes are likely to be painful because people are not accustomed to them, and 2) long-term benefits of the changes are initially obscure because people require time to learn how to take advantage of them. The conclusion of the argument is that new laws should be repealed only under dire circumstances.

To make this more understandable, let's use a simple example. Imagine a new law is enacted that requires everyone to recycle their waste. Initially, people might find this difficult and inconvenient because they are not used to sorting their waste. However, over time, the long-term benefits of reduced pollution and landfill usage become clear as people learn how to recycle effectively.

An "Evaluate" question for this argument could be: "Do the long-term benefits of a law generally outweigh its short-term consequences?"

Now, let's discuss the answer choices. The question type is Principle, which asks us to find the answer choice that most helps to justify the political theorist's argument.

a) Whether a law should be retained is independent of what the voters think its consequences will be.

This answer choice does not directly address the relationship between short-term consequences and long-term benefits, so it doesn't strengthen the argument.

b) Whether a law should be retained depends primarily on the long-term consequences of its enactment.

This answer choice, if valid, supports the theorist's assertion that short-term pain is acceptable in the name of long-term benefits. It strengthens the argument by emphasizing the importance of long-term consequences when considering whether to retain a law.

c) The repeal of a law should be at least as difficult as the passage of a law.

This answer choice does not specifically address the short-term consequences and long-term benefits of a law, so it doesn't strengthen the argument.

d) The short-term consequences of a law's repeal should be considered more carefully than the short-term consequences of its passage.

This answer choice focuses on the comparison between the short-term consequences of a law's repeal and its passage, rather than the relationship between short-term consequences and long-term benefits. It does not strengthen the argument.

e) The long-term consequences of the enactment of a law should be more beneficial than its short-term consequences.

While this answer choice seems related to the argument, it does not directly support the idea that new laws should be repealed only under dire circumstances. It merely states that long-term consequences should be more beneficial than short-term consequences, without providing a reason for the immunity period.

The correct answer choice is (B), as it strengthens the political theorist's argument by emphasizing the importance of long-term consequences when considering whether to retain a law.