Reading comp PrepTest 108 · Section 1 · Question 11

Topic: Legal

Paragraph 1

• Paragraph note
  • Background and criticism of objectivism (the view that there's a single neutral "truth" is wrong)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Definition of "objectivism":
    • There is one unbiased version of what happened and this version is more important than any other; the law's job is to locate this objective description (fourth through sixth sentences)
  • Author's view on objectivism:
    • The flaw with this system is that no one is unbiased; psychologists have shown that everyone's perspective is affected by their experiences (seventh and eighth sentences)
  • Cause-and-effect relationship:
    • The growing belief that society decides what is "true" has caused legal reformers are reevaluating how legal systems determine what is true (first sentence)
  • Author's attitude: "complex interconnections" (first sentence), "serious flaw" (seventh sentence), "no such thing" (seventh sentence), "never any escape" (last sentence)

Paragraph 2

• Paragraph note
  • Author on harm caused by objectivism (excluded those without legal training)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Cause-and-effect relationship, according to the author:
    • Objectivism in the law caused harm by assuming that the people who are trained in legal discourse (talk fancy like a lawyer) tell true stories and assuming that people who aren't trained tell false stories (first sentence)
  • Author's attitude: "societal harm" (first sentence), "assumption of objectivist principles" (first sentence), "rejected" (first sentence)

Paragraph 3

• Paragraph note
  • Solution presented (replace abstract legal discourse with powerful personal stories)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Author and legal scholars' view:
    • Objectivism devalues emotion/experience, but these reformers want to replace the abstract legal conversations with personal stories (second and third sentences)
    • This will create a sense of empathy between the legal insiders and the untrained people (fifth sentence)
    • This new type of narrative represents a dramatic change for the legal system, but the power of stories can be a powerful uniting force (sixth and last sentences)
  • Examples of legal scholars who argue for personal stories:
    • Patricia Williams, Derrick Bell, and Mari Matsuda (first sentence)
  • Author's attitude: "empowerment" (first sentence), "systematically disallows" (second sentence), "cognition in its narrowest sense" (second sentence), "powerful personal stories" (third sentence), "may convince" (fourth sentence), "compelling force" (fifth sentence), "can create a sense of empathy" (fifth sentence), "can shatter the complacency" (sixth sentence), "engaging power of narrative" (last sentence), "might play a crucial, positive role" (last sentence), "overcoming differences" (last sentence), "new collectivity" (last sentence)

Main Point: Promoting personal stories as valuable legal resources will empower people marginalized by the legal system's objectivist assumptions.

Paragraph 1, Sentence 5 (P1, S5): The old approach (objectivism)

P1, S7: The problem with the old approach

P3,S3: The solution

Problem/Solution: This passage utilizes a Problem/Solution Meta-Structure.* In such a structure, an issue and potential solutions are described.

This particular passage begins by describing how many legal systems operate on the principle of objectivism. In this system, judges and juries are tasked with identifying the one, objectively true story that accurately represents the facts of what happened. The problem with this, according to the author, is that no one is capable of providing a completely objective account — everyone is affected by experiences and biases. The second paragraph describes how the assumption of objectivism in legal systems has led to the rejection of the stories provided by those not trained in legal discourse.

In the final paragraph, the author describes the efforts of certain scholars to champion emotionally-colored personal stories as valuable resources to the legal system. Doing so will help empower people whose lack of training in legal discourse would have otherwise devalued their accounts. The author believes this change will ruffle some feathers, but the unifying power of narrative should help create a new, empathetic collectivity.

In passages with a Problem/Solution Meta-Structure, the main point will be the solution to the problem that the author discusses. So, let's first identify the problem. The first two paragraphs lay it out for us: the current legal system assumes there's an objective version of the truth, which tends to marginalize the voices of those who can't talk like a lawyer. Now, what's the author's solution? It's to advocate for the value of emotional stories to empower people who don't have legal training. Based on these facts, we can anticipate a main point that looks like this: "Promoting personal stories as valuable legal resources will empower people marginalized by the legal system's objectivist assumptions."

*Other Meta-Structures could work here — especially those from the Critical family of Meta-Structures. If you went with Criticizing a Viewpoint or Old Approach/New Approach, we wouldnt' argue with you. After all, there is considerable overlap between these three Meta-Structures. We have chosen to describe this passage with the first of these structures because the author specifically addresses the "serious flaw in objectivism" (P1, S7). However, proceeding with either of the other structures can lead to an effective understanding of the passage — just be certain of the author's opinion on a system based on objectivism and a system that values personal stories.

This passage is, ironically, a pretty tough, dry read. I know, for an author who's against the law privileging those fluent in legal discourse and for the power of personal stories, this reads like a memorandum from the desk of Quincy J. Thesaurus, Esq. When a passage is tough to read, simplify it to broad strokes. Objectivism = assuming there's one truth. Objectivism doesn’t exist. Objectivism in the law hurts people who can't talk like lawyers. Valuing personal stories can mitigate the harm of objects. If we need to get any more specific than that, we can return to the passage.