Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumRecognizing Concrete Instances of Abstract Concepts

In a treatise on legal philosophy, a scholar defines the "Doctrine of Anticipatory Mitigation." According to this doctrine, a situation qualifies only if an entity, recognizing that a necessary action it plans to execute will inevitably cause harm to a secondary party, proactively and fundamentally alters its own planned action prior to initiation. Furthermore, the entity must incur a significant, unrecoverable cost to itself through this alteration, and the alteration must be motivated solely by the desire to eliminate the impending harm to the secondary party.

Which one of the following scenarios most accurately illustrates the Doctrine of Anticipatory Mitigation as described by the scholar?

  1. A
    A mining corporation begins excavating a mountain, but the initial blasting causes unexpected rockslides that threaten a nearby village. The corporation immediately halts operations and spends millions to build a retaining wall to protect the village before resuming the excavation.
  2. B
    A freight company determines its standard daily trucking route will severely disrupt a small town's annual street festival. The company redraws its route to bypass the town, completely avoiding the festival while inadvertently reducing its own fleet's fuel consumption and shortening delivery times.
  3. A city government, needing to construct a new aqueduct, realizes the planned surface route will destroy a historic neighborhood. Before breaking ground, the city redesigns the aqueduct to tunnel deep underground—doubling the project's budget—exclusively to ensure the neighborhood remains untouched.Answer
  4. D
    A university, recognizing that its necessary action of expanding the campus will inevitably cause harm to a neighboring community garden, proactively pays a significant sum to completely relocate the garden to a better, more fertile plot of land prior to construction.
  5. E
    A wealthy philanthropist foresees that an impending hurricane will inevitably cause severe flooding to a vulnerable coastal town. To mitigate this harm, the philanthropist proactively funds the construction of a massive seawall at great personal cost, motivated entirely by the desire to protect the town.

Answer

The correct answer is the scenario in which a city government redesigns an aqueduct to tunnel underground before breaking ground, doubling its budget to save a historic neighborhood.
The scenario involving the city government perfectly maps onto every element of the Doctrine of Anticipatory Mitigation. The city has a planned necessary action (building an aqueduct) that will cause inevitable harm to a secondary party (the historic neighborhood). Crucially, the city alters its *own* action (redesigning the route to go underground) *prior* to breaking ground. It also incurs a significant, unrecoverable cost (doubling the budget) with the *sole* motivation of protecting the neighborhood.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Deconstruct the abstract principle in the passage into a checklist of necessary conditions.
Identified five strict conditions: 1) Entity plans a necessary action causing harm. 2) Entity alters its OWN planned action. 3) Alteration happens PRIOR to initiation. 4) Entity incurs a significant, unrecoverable cost. 5) Sole motivation is eliminating the harm.
Principle application questions on the LSAT require the correct answer to perfectly satisfy every single constraint established in the passage's definition.
2
Evaluate the scenarios against the temporal and procedural conditions (altering own action proactively).
The mining corporation scenario fails because the mitigation is reactive (after blasting starts). The university scenario fails because it alters the secondary party (moving the garden) rather than its own action. The philanthropist scenario fails because the harm is caused by a hurricane, not their own planned action.
Eliminating choices that violate the structural logic of the definition narrows down the plausible answers.
3
Evaluate the remaining scenarios against the cost and motivation qualifiers.
The freight company scenario fails because avoiding the festival incidentally benefits the company (saves fuel/time), violating the requirement of an 'unrecoverable cost'. The city government scenario satisfies all conditions, including incurring a significant cost (doubling the budget) solely to prevent harm.
Qualifying language like 'significant, unrecoverable cost' is critical in LSAT Reading Comprehension; answers that bypass these modifiers are incorrect.

Key Concept

Strict Application of Abstract Conditions to Concrete Scenarios
Estimated Time:1m 45s
Rate this question

Topics

Recognizing Concrete Instances of Abstract Concepts

More questions from this topic