Logical reasoning PrepTest 127 · Section 2 · Question 22

Incorrect. First, it's not noted that judicial opinions aren't authored by multiple judges, so this answer doesn't necessarily highlight a difference between these opinions and the dissenting opinions. Even if it did, there's no indication that this would make it more likely to be of high literary quality or alright to be subject to misinterpretation.

Incorrect. This distinguishes between works of literature and legal opinions, but not between regular opinions and dissenting ones.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Facts

Question Type:
Paradox

Stimulus Summary:
Writing of high literary quality is subject to misinterpretation. Judicial decisions shouldn't be misinterpreted. However, dissenting opinions often feature writing of high literary quality.

Answer Anticipation:
This paradox features three elements that are being compared—writing of high literary quality, judicial decisions, and dissenting opinions. Writing of high literary quality is subject to misinterpretation—something that would be bad in a judicial decision, which is a determination of law. So it therefore makes sense that judicial decisions aren't of high literary quality. However, it's noted that dissenting opinions are often of high literary quality—and this is the paradox we need resolved. In order to do so, we need to bring up a relevant difference between regular judicial decisions and dissenting opinion, one that makes it acceptable for the latter to be subject to misinterpretation.

Answer Explanation:
Judicial opinions aren't of high literary quality because they need to be clear and not subject to misinterpretation since they determine law. If dissenting opinions don't determine law, then they don't face the same pressure to avoid misinterpretation and thus can be of high literary quality.

Key Takeaway:
This Paradox question featured a new level of difficulty in that there were three elements being compared in the stimulus. While that adds difficulty, it doesn't change our approach—understand the points of comparison, identify any missing pieces, and look for an answer that brings up a relevant similarity or difference, depending on what would resolve the paradox.

Incorrect. This answer ignores discussing why dissenting opinions are written in a different style than regular opinions altogether.

Incorrect. While dissenting opinions would only be possible when there's a panel of judges (the solo judge can't dissent from their own opinion), this answer doesn't explain why the panel decision, being more widely read, would feature dissents of high literary quality.