National Admissions Test for Law (LNAT) Commentary on Sample Test (May 2005) General There are two alternative strategies which can be employed when answering questions in a multiple-choice test. Some people prefer to read the text first and then look at the questions and possible answers; other people prefer to look at the questions first, and then bear them in mind as they read the text. Since the passages used in the LNAT are quite long, it will usually be best to start by at least skim-reading each passage first. Whether you then choose to read the text again more thoroughly before looking at the questions, or whether you prefer to look at the questions at this stage and then try to bear them in mind when re-reading the passage, will probably depend on how easy you find each passage to understand. When it comes to selecting one of the possible options as an answer to each question, there are again essentially two possible strategies. The first is simply to try to answer the question without looking at the options provided. Once you have decided what you think the answer is, you can then see if it (or something very like it) is listed among the options provided. If it is there, then your answer has been validated. If it is not there, you effectively get a free second go. The second strategy is to take each option in turn and see whether it fits, or whether it can be eliminated. Eliminating wrong answers can often work very well in a multiple-choice test since, once all the wrong answers are eliminated, whatever is left must be correct. There now follows a series of comments on and explanations of the reasons for the correct answers in a number of questions. One question is taken from each of the ten passages in the Sample Test. They exemplify different kinds of questions, and explore the reasons why the various options are correct or incorrect. In each passage you should look very carefully at the ways in which the writer constructs his or her argument, thinking about the logical progress, and the ways in which the stages of the argument are linked together, along with the purposes of any examples or analogies. Ground your answers in your understanding of the subject matter and the ways in which it has been presented to the reader. Look for the central ideas, and don t jump to premature conclusions.
Passage I: Question 1. When asked to identify the main argument of a passage, one possible method is to identify and eliminate other options. These options might be wrong because whilst one strand of argument is present in the passage, it is not the main argument, or because the choice offered is not actually an argument. The writer does argue that the word freedom has different meanings (a), and gives a number of examples of such meanings. However, these different definitions do not form the main argument in the passage, since they are subordinate to the comments about the importance of precision and accuracy in using terms, particularly those which have an emotional impact. It seems that of the options offered (d) is the best choice, but it is important to look at the other choices to ensure that they can be dismissed, in order to confirm (d) as the correct answer. The writer connects the definitions of freedom to the ideas of freedom to and freedom from (c) which he defines as negative and positive freedoms, arguing that both are linked, since a negative freedom clears the way for a positive freedom. Therefore (c) can be eliminated as an option since it is neither the main argument nor a correct interpretation of the writer s point of view. The two remaining options are (b) and (e). Although education is an important topic, and evidently is the subject of the source of the passage, the importance of freedom in education does not form the writer s main argument: the writer leads his argument to the concluding sentence of the first paragraph, then develops it by giving further examples of usages of the word freedom, not restricted to the educational field. Therefore (b) is not the correct choice, and there is further confirmatory evidence for (d). Since the passage is concerned with the necessity of careful use of possibly inflammatory words in order to clarify meaning, (e) is clearly wrong. 2
Passage II: Question 4. You should be familiar with the use of analogy in an argument. The question assumes an understanding of the term: analogies can very often form a building block in the construction of an argument. That comparison is in itself a kind of analogy. This question requires you to respond to inference. To infer is to draw conclusions from the evidence you have been given. An additional complication here is that you have work out what can not be inferred. You need to bear these different aspects in mind when choosing the correct option. There is specific evidence to draw upon in the first paragraph, though the writer develops the analogy by further comments on the scientific approach, and by comparisons to the mathematical approach. The writer bases his comparison between science and the judicial system primarily on the use of evidence, so option (a) is not the right choice since it can be inferred. He contrasts the infallible logic of mathematics with the fallible, evidential basis of science. Therefore options (b) and (c) are not the right choices. He stresses that science cannot eliminate all doubt: he states that the scientist will have to live with the prospect that one day the theory will be overturned though it may be assumed to be true if there is enough evidence to prove it beyond all reasonable doubt. Thus he is emphasising the inevitable element of doubt, but not as a criticism of the system. Therefore (d) is eliminated, and (e) is by elimination the correct choice. Option (e) suggests that the writer s purpose in creating this analogy is to criticise the judicial system by stressing its fallibility. However, the writer is not arguing from a description of the scientific approach in opposition to the mathematical approach to suggest practical difficulties with the judicial system. Therefore (e) is confirmed as the correct option since it cannot be inferred from the analogy. Be aware of whether or not a writer is making value judgements. It is also necessary to understand the difference between implication and inference. The reader can infer what the writer has implied. 3
Passage III: Question 7. It is important to grasp the moment when a writer moves from objective to subjective, from fact to opinion. The question focuses on this area. You will need to consider what evidence is provided for each claim, or even whether it is possible in fact for there to be any real factual evidence in support of the statement. Writers can and do make claims which are not verifiable. Here you are being asked to distinguish the statement which is more than an assertion, that is, a statement which could be checked objectively. You should not confuse the distinction between fact and assertion with the distinction between truth and falsehood. An assertion (and indeed many other types of opinion) may subsequently prove to be either true or false (or, indeed, it may remain incapable of validating or invalidating). What distinguishes an assertion from a fact is the lack of evidence at the time of the statement to justify it. In the article, the writer moves from a suggestion about Michael Howard s age as an advantage in contrast to the relative youth of other party leaders to a claim that he has appeal to older voters, (a). There is no evidence offered for this statement. Similarly, the suggestion that conservative voters value wisdom and maturity (b) has no supporting evidence. The claim that voters tend to get bored with one party after two or three parliamentary terms and swap it for another also lacks evidence. Whilst the statement about William Hague s youth (e) is based on anecdotal evidence, this evidence itself is also assertive. The statement about over-45s (c) can be tested and verified, and is therefore not an assertion. 4
Passage IV: Question 11. The question does not assume that you have any knowledge of Latin; it asks you to work out what a particular expression means. You won t be able to do this unless you examine the word order very carefully. Look closely at the last paragraph. The writer states that moral language belongs to the genus prescriptive language. Therefore, prescriptive language cannot be either different from or the same as moral language, since it is stated that one is subsumed in the other. Hence options (a) and (b) are not valid. The writer is telling us that there need to be two distinctions here: he is suggesting that we need firstly to distinguish prescriptive language from other kinds of language and then, having sorted out prescriptive language to our satisfaction, to pick out moral language from the other kinds of prescriptive language. Therefore, since prescriptive language includes moral language, neither (d) nor (e) is a tenable option. The writer defines moral language as part of a larger category, that of prescriptive language. Therefore, (c) is the correct choice. 5
Passage V: Question 13. This question directs you to a particular point of usage. What you are being asked about is not a definition of punctuation; rather you should look closely at how this writer in this passage is using inverted commas. First, find your inverted commas. You will need to work out what part each example is playing in the context of the passage as a whole. This is a question where it might be easy to be lured into choosing an option on the basis of what you think you know about inverted commas, but this isn t wise. Applying the method of eliminating the obviously wrong answer, you can dismiss option (c). Unless you are answering very casually, based on the prime function of inverted commas in writing, you will realise that the writer isn t quoting. Nor is it likely that he is using words incorrectly (b) since he is scrutinising language usage very closely in the passage. To suggest emphasis (a) is a loose kind of response, and an option that an examination of the different examples will not support. If you look at the words disciplines, normal, absurd and knowledge you can see that the writer is not using colloquial language (e). This leaves us with (d). Can this answer be justified? The main thrust of the argument throughout the passage is a kind of destabilising of assumptions and categories. The writer wants us to look again at our own categorisations and not take them for granted. He stresses that these categories are artificially constructed and not natural. He is drawing attention to the ways in which we use words such as normal or absurd and suggesting that these concepts themselves cannot be taken for granted. Therefore, (d) is the justifiably correct choice. 6
Passage VI: Question 18. The question distinguishes between reviewer and writer, although in this extract the distinction does not serve to demonstrate a difference between the two. The reviewer is explaining the writer s purposes in using a particular example. It is, however, helpful to bear in mind in reviews the possibility that part of the passage might reflect reviewer rather than writer, that there might be a difference of opinion or interpretation between them, or that the reviewer might be taking a critical stance. This particular example should be assessed in the context of the argument in the passage as a whole: it is very difficult to determine the use of an example or examples unless they can be fitted into the progression of the argument as a whole. The reviewer is drawing attention to Chaucer s treatment of his two northern characters, in the light of the discussion of language diversity in Crystal s book. Her main point is not that the status of a northern accent has changed since Chaucer s time options (a) and (e) nor that there was prestige attached then to one accent or another option (c). Although reference is made to the targets of Chaucer s satire, the purpose is to support the argument about Chaucer s characterisation: that he has given the students northern accents to draw them with more life, not because their accents were regarded as funny or as of lower status. Hence (d) is not the main reason for using the example of the students, and the right option is (b). 7
Passage VII: Question 20. The writer explains that the utilitarian view holds that punishment is justifiable only by reference to the probable consequences of maintaining it as one of the devices of social order, in other words the punishment is assessed according to its social consequences, not linked back to the offence or offender. This means that both (a) and (d) are argued and are therefore not the correct choice. The retributive view, however, firmly links the punishment and the crime: the retributive view is that punishment is justified on the grounds that wrongdoing merits punishment. In other words, punishment should inevitably follow crime regardless of other circumstances. This is in direct contrast to the utilitarian view which always considers consequences. The writer argues that for the wrongdoer the severity of the appropriate punishment depends on the depravity of his act : hence option (e) is also not the right choice. It might seem at this stage that option (b) is going to be the correct choice, but it is important to look at the rest of the passage. In the last paragraph the writer gives a specific example of the reconciliation of the two apparently conflicting views. He has prepared the way for this in the penultimate paragraph in which he suggests that there is a resolution to this seeming conflict. So option (b) is not the correct choice, since the writer directly states the possibility of reconciliation. This leaves (c) as the right option, since the writer has firmly argued that retributive views connect the punishment to the crime, regardless of consequences. Where you are asked to find the exception, as in this question, you may well find it helpful to work systematically through the options, as above, in order to arrive at the right answer by a process of elimination. This might prove to be a more efficient method than one which immediately looks for the option which does not form part of the argument in the passage, and is therefore the correct choice. 8
Passage VIII: Question 23. In order to decide what is being mainly suggested by the metaphor, it is important to work out what is not being suggested in the passage, or what might be a side issue, or peripheral argument. The extended metaphor needs to be identified as a starting point, and this sentence : Nineteenthcentury professionals, journalists and academics, made great writers into an officer class, and imposed restrictions on the entry of women and NCOs is central. The previous sentence, however, has a reference to the ranks which begins the military metaphor. The nature of an extended metaphor is obviously that of an image which is sustained in some way, where the initial implicit comparison is developed. Here ranks begins the comparison, and this is developed specifically with officer class and NCOs. Although comments are made in the first paragraph about women and NCOs, the writer does not claim that they were excluded options (a) and (b) but rather that restrictions on their entry were imposed. So the first two choices can be eliminated. The writer, by suggesting the change from ranks to officer class, is focusing on the changes in attitudes to literature over a period of time. She does not argue that officer class means professional option (e) but that it falsely appeared to be harmonious. The uniformity that the canon imposed was in fact artificial. But artificial is applied in the paragraph to the concept of a canon or heritage, not to the idea of literature as a whole. Therefore, option (c) is not the right answer. By a process of elimination, option (d) is the right choice. 9
Passage IX: Question 24. When you are asked for the main point of an argument, or as in this case, an analogy, it is crucial to sift the information, as well as look at the ways in which it is presented to the reader. Since the analogy of the Chinese room is sustained throughout the whole of the first paragraph, it is clear that there will be a number of separate aspects involved. The first paragraph should not be read in isolation, since it is probable that the main point will be returned to and perhaps elaborated on later. This is an important principle which can be applied to all such questions. Searching for the main point will include an assessment of the relative significance of the statements you are presented with, before making a decision. All of the alternatives here relate to the analogy. It is often, although not always, the case that significant conclusions occur at the end of a passage or a long paragraph: the information and argument tends to build up to a conclusion. Here the writer sums up in the last sentence of this paragraph: a computer may appear to be intelligent, but in fact it has no grasp at all of the information it processes. And the first line of the next paragraph continues the argument: I reject Searle s argument that computers could not be made to understand the information they manipulate. Although the statements (a), (b), (d), and (e) are applicable, they serve the purpose of demonstrating that all these actions can be carried out, and there is still no grasp or understanding of the language. Therefore (c) is the correct choice. 10
Passage X: Question 27. The examples are specifically defined and named in the paragraph. The use of the word main suggests that there might well be points being made in the paragraph which are related to the subject, but are of lesser importance and don t continue the main thread. In this case, the occupations cited are varied but it is not possible to infer that they all do not have a compulsory retirement age, since the reader is not given sufficient information to come to a definitive conclusion on this. Moreover, the point being made is not about the nature of the jobs, but about those who have them. Hence (a) is not the correct option here. There is no suggestion either that the examples have been given in order to promote work for people in their 70s, for the benefit of the economy option (c) since the argument is linked in to the idea of the personal rather than financial cost of society s discarding of older workers. But since the paragraph specifically states that people age at different rates, then neither (d) nor (e) is the main argument being pursued. The argument is concerned with the possibility of allowing those who wish to do so, and who can do so to continue in work option (b), the correct answer. 11