PLANNING AHEAD
image of nursing advising your dream school

Day 17 LSAT Practice Question

Residents of a coastal community are resisting the efforts of one family to build a large house on the family’s land. Although the house would not violate any town codes, the land in question is depicted in a painting by a famous and beloved landscape painter who recently died. Residents argue that the house would alter the pristine landscape and hence damage the community’s artistic and historic heritage.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the reasoning of the residents opposed to building the house?


(A) Every possible effort should be made to preserve historic buildings that are well known and well loved.

(B) Communities that seek to preserve undeveloped areas of landscape or historic neighborhoods should purchase those properties for the public trust.

(C) Artists who choose to represent actual landscapes in their paintings have the right to demand that the owners of the land represented do not significantly alter the landscape.

(D) The right to build on one’s own property is constrained by the artistic and historical interests of the community at large.

(E) In historic communities, the building and zoning regulations should prohibit construction that obstructs access to historic sites.
Click to reveal answer
A. The issue isn’t about preserving a historic building—it’s about stopping a new one from being built. So this misses the point entirely.

B. Suggesting the community should buy the land doesn’t support the argument. The point is that the community should have influence even without owning the land.

C. This principle allows an artist to request that a landowner avoid certain developments—but the artist in this case is deceased. So it’s irrelevant.

D. Correct. This fits well. It supports the idea that the family’s right to build may be limited if the community has a legitimate historical or artistic interest in the space.

E. This is about what the law should say, but the passage already states there’s no law preventing construction. That doesn’t help support the argument that the building still shouldn’t go up.
If you have any questions or see any issues with this page, please get in touch with matthew.russell@juriseducation.com