Principle JustifyDiff: Medium

Logic Breakdown

Passage Summary: A lady wants to talk to three defendants one-on-one without their lawyers listening in. But since two guys have the same lawyer, you can't kick the lawyer out without leaving one of them without their chosen attorney, and the judge won't make them switch lawyers.

Conclusion: The court cannot grant the plaintiff's request to question the defendants individually and privately.

Reasoning: Granting the request would require separating defendants from their shared legal counsel, and the court is unwilling to force any defendant to obtain new representation.

Analysis: The judge is prioritizing the right to maintain current legal counsel over the plaintiff's procedural request. To justify this conclusion, we need a principle that acts as a 'tie-breaker.' Look for a rule stating that a legal request must be denied if its fulfillment would infringe upon a defendant's right to keep their existing lawyer.

Passage Stimulus

Passage Redacted

Unlock Full Passage

5.

The conclusion of the judge's argument is most strongly supported if which one of the following principles is assumed to hold?

Correct Answer
B
B asserts that defendants have a right to have their own legal counsel present when questioned. With two codefendants sharing counsel and the court refusing to order new counsel, granting the plaintiff’s order would force a defendant to be questioned without their own lawyer—so the order cannot be granted.
Upgrade Your Prep

Ready to go beyond free explanations?

LSAT Perfection is the #1 modern LSAT prep platform, trusted by thousands of students for comprehensive test strategies, advanced drilling, and full analytics on every PrepTest.

Detailed explanations for 59 PrepTests
Advanced drillset builder
Personalized analytics
Built-in Wrong Answer Journal
Explore Perfection Plus for full LSAT prep