Reading comp PrepTest 143 · Section 2 · Question 13

Incorrect. (Lines 38-39; Lines 43-45) Under the Author's system, a judge wouldn't provide reasoning if they decided against recusal, instead providing their reasoning for the decision in the case. The objection is against this reasoning in the case, so this answer is incorrect.

Incorrect. (Lines 46-47) The Author does bring up a "knowledgeable" observer, suggesting that the person analyzing the judge's decision has some type of legal training. But, if anything, the judge's fake reasoning would try to confuse with technical jargon—not the hidden reasoning that is unstated in their opinion.

Correct. Question Type:
Must Be True (Principle)

Strategy Overview:
Review the statement describing "real reasoning," determine what it means, and then find an answer that aligns with that determination

Answer Anticipation/Relevant Lines:
We're treating this as a Must Be True (Principle) question because it's asking us to take a concept described in the stimulus and find an application of it. That's more or less what a Must Be True (Principle) question asks us to do. When tasked with applying a definition or finding an example of a general concept, you can approach it as you would a Must Be True (Principle) question.

Looking at our notes, the first sentence of Paragraph 4 is where the potential objection to the Author's recommendation is brought up. That objection is that a judge could hide their "real reasoning" behind the reasoning that they write up in deciding the case. So, in other words, the judge is reaching a decision for reason X, but she says that she reached that decision for reason Y.

This is in the context of being worried about judges having hidden biases (Line 7; Lines 9-10; Lines 20-21; and, most relevantly, Line 46!). So the hidden reasons that the objectors here worry about would be ones based on the biases of the judges. Let's find an answer reflecting that!

Answer Explanation:
(Line 46) The objection raised is that the judge might write a rationale that doesn't reflect their "real reason," and thus there might be "undetected bias." As such, the objection is that the real reason might be based in bias. This answer is an example of that—a ruling that's based on person bias against the defendant. This answer is therefore correct.

Key Takeaway:
When a question asks you to find an example of a concept raised in the passage, you can treat it as you would a Must Be True (Principle) question. Your principle is the concept in question, and you have to then find an answer that lines up with it.

Incorrect. (Lines 46-47) The objection worries about an outwardly reasonable decision that hides a judge's bias underneath. As such, the fake reasoning in this objection would be valid, not the real reasoning.

Incorrect. (Lines 45-46) The objectors are worried about the "real reasoning" being hidden and thus hiding an undetected bias. As such, it wouldn't include something that is referred to in the written explanation.