This statement, in spite of literal inaccuracy in its every phrase, served the purpose for which it was written. It expressed an aspiration, and it was a fighting slogan. In order that slogans may serve their purpose, it is necessary that they shall arouse strong, emotional belief, but it is not at all necessary that they shall be literally accurate. A large part of each human being's time on earth is spent in declaiming about his "rights," asserting their existence, complaining of their violation, describing them as present or future, vested or contingent, absolute or conditional, perfect or inchoate, alienable or inalienable, legal or equitable, in rem or in personam, primary or secondary, moral or jural (legal), inherent or acquired, natural or artificial, human or divine. No doubt still other adjectives are available. Each one expresses some idea, but not always the same idea even when used twice by one and the same person.
They all need definition in the interest of understanding and peace. In his table of correlatives, Hohfeld set "right" over against "duty" as its necessary correlative. This had been done numberless times by other men. He also carefully distinguished it from the concepts expressed in his table by the terms "privilege," "power," and "immunity.'' To the present writer, the value of his work seems beyond question and the practical convenience of his classification is convincing. However, the adoption of Hohfeld's classification and the correlating of the terms "right" and "duty" do not complete the work of classification and definition.
(Extracted from Arthur L Corbin, Rights and Duties, 33 Yale LJ 501(1923)
The question asks us to identify which concept from Hohfeld's table of correlatives was not explicitly mentioned in the provided passage as a concept that "right" was distinguished from. To answer this, we need to carefully examine Hohfeld's framework as described in the passage and compare it with the given options.
Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld developed a system to clarify complex legal terminology. He identified fundamental jural relations. A key aspect is the concept of correlatives – pairs of terms where the existence of one implies the existence of the other. The passage mentions that Hohfeld considered "right" and "duty" to be such a pair:
Beyond these direct correlatives, Hohfeld also distinguished "rights" from other related concepts to precisely define their meaning and scope.
The passage explicitly states how Hohfeld differentiated "right" from other concepts. It reads:
"He also carefully distinguished it [right] from the concepts expressed in his table by the terms "privilege," "power," and "immunity."
From this statement, we can clearly identify the concepts that the passage says Hohfeld explicitly distinguished "right" from:
Now, let's look at the given options and see how they relate to the passage's description:
The question asks for the concept that was not explicitly mentioned in the passage as a concept "right" was distinguished from. While "duty" is mentioned but as a correlative, "disability" is entirely absent from the passage's discussion regarding distinctions from "right." Therefore, "disability" is the concept that fulfills the condition of not being explicitly mentioned in this specific context.