Law National Admissions Test (LNAT)
Mock Tests

Speaker A: For years, debate has raged around the idea of whether zoos are ethical. There are various arguments on both sides of the fence, with animal rights campaigners amongst the foremost of these.

Primary amongst the arguments that animal rights campaigners put forward, is the idea that zoos reduce the natural instinct of animals. For example, if a meat-eater that would actively hunt in the wild is hand fed by humans for its entire existence, then it will completely lose its natural instinct to hunt for itself. Thus, zoos are severely limiting the animals under their protection. Secondly, there is the fact that the animals are being used for public entertainment. Zoos might claim that they are providing a safe haven for animals on the brink of extinction, but they completely undermine the benefit of this by offering free reign to the public to observe the animals through cages. Children scream at them, banging on the glass. People ogle and stare and disturb the poor, frightened creatures. How would we like it if someone did this to us?

Speaker B: As a regular zoo-goer and enthusiast, I have always been at odds with the idea of ‘how would we like it if someone did this to us?’ This is a very flawed concept, but one that do-gooders seem to have adopted as a mantra when it comes to animals. How would you like it if someone put you on a lead, and walked you round the park? Well, my dog seems to enjoy it very much, I’ll have you know. Zoos are kind to animals. They feed them and keep them from becoming extinct, and the way that they do this is via the revenue generated from visitors. The proof is in the pudding. Although a noble cause, animal charities and donations do not make anywhere near the profit that zoos make. Many of them struggle to survive, and although the animals are well looked after, these sanctuaries often just cannot be sustained. So the next time you look at a nearly extinct animal, and criticise zoo-goers for ogling it through a cage, remember that these same people are the ones funding the survival of its species.

QUESTION.

Which of the following provides the most accurate description of why Speaker B dislikes the statement, ‘how would you like it if someone did this to us?’

A – Speaker B dislikes this statement because she feels that it is counter-intuitive to try and put human beings in the same position as animals.

B – Speaker B dislikes this statement because she feels that many of the same people who use it also own domesticated pets.

C – Speaker B dislikes this statement because she feels that it is used in many cases where animals are being treated respectfully and with kindness.

D – Speaker B dislikes this statement because she feels that it is used in many cases where she does not want to imagine how she’d feel if someone did the same thing to her.

Answer:

Answer = C. Speaker B dislikes this statement because she feels that it is used in many cases where animals are being treated respectfully and with kindness.

Explanation = While it is true that Speaker B comments on the relationship between people who use this statement and domesticated pets, this is not the main reason she dislikes this statement. She clearly states, ‘my dog seems to enjoy it very much, I’ll have you know. Zoos are kind to animals. They feed them and keep them from becoming extinct, and the way that they do this is via the revenue generated from visitors.’

QUESTION.

“Does the Snoopers’ Charter infringe on our human rights?”

This question focuses on your ability to discuss your opinions and provide valuable explanations and examples for both sides, whilst choosing a definitive side of the argument.

For. To argue ‘for‘ the Snoopers’ Charter infringing on our rights, the key points you could include are:

• The cost of introducing the changes will hit consumers hardest. The government have not considered the enormous costs involved in collecting and holding such a large amount of data for ISP companies. In order to cope with this, it is inevitable that service providers will have to increase the cost of using their services.

• There is absolutely no need for the government to get involved in what the average person looks at online. The majority of people are law-abiding citizens, who deserve the benefit of the doubt. The government are acting as if all Internet users are guilty of criminal activity.

• By introducing such widespread data collection techniques, the government are asking for trouble. If this data fell into the wrong hands then the results could be disastrous. We are essentially giving unlimited power to ISP employees, who can view all of their customer data, and theoretically use this for their own purposes, i.e. blackmail.

• This extreme level of surveillance is exactly what has been warned about in books such as 1984, and is reminiscent of the actions of totalitarian dictators in other countries. Do we not have human rights? The government is ramping up the level of control it has over its public, under the guise of protecting them.

• The bill gives organisations such as the Police the power to hack into phones and laptops. This is a rapid expansion on what it began as, which was simply requiring ISPs to store customer Internet data. There is strong evidence to suggest that once the plan is incorporated, the government will take even more liberties with their newfound power.

Against. To argue ‘against‘ the Snoopers’ Charter infringing on our rights, the key points you could include are:

• We live in a society where it is necessary for the government to monitor our Internet activity. Terrorists are using the Internet and encrypted communications services to plan deadly attacks on human life. If we do not stop this, the results could be catastrophic.

• The government have stated that ISP companies will not be forced to adhere to the bill if it is not cost permissive for them to do so. Therefore, it is unlikely that consumers will feel too much of a financial backlash.

• The argument that ISP employees could exploit the data they have collected is unfounded. Such employees would have to go to great lengths to do so, and could even do so in the current system. Furthermore, if we trust the ISPs themselves to provide us with the Internet, then we should trust their judgement on whom they are employing.

• The Police Service have openly welcomed the bill, stating that they believe it will significantly increase their ability to fight crime. It is integral that we do everything we can to help our Police Service and other digital protection agencies, such as GCHQ, fight criminals within our society. This extends to paedophiles, as well as terrorists.

• The current form of parliament means that comparing the government’s actions to those of dictators such as Stalin is unrealistic. We live in a democratic system, where such behaviour would be immediately stopped. This is particularly true for the media, which cannot be controlled by the government.