Reading comp PrepTest 143 · Section 2 · Question 14

Incorrect. The Author does mention the appearance of impropriety, but she never mentions what the public actually think about the legal system, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. (Lines 3-5) The Author brings up these professional codes of conduct, but she never states how judges feel about them.

Incorrect. (Lines 5-7; Lines 22-24) The Author does discuss judges who are biased failing to be recused, but she never discusses judges who are removed despite not having biases. If anything, in stating that there's a focus on even the appearance of bias, she suggests that judges are removed when there isn't a bias but there appears to be.

Incorrect. (Lines 5-7; Lines 22-24) Similar to (C), this answer speaks too specifically on frequency of outcomes ("rarely"). The passage itself is silent as to how often a biased judge is allowed to sit on a case, or an unbiased judge is removed.

Correct. Question Type:
Must Be True

Strategy Overview:
Review the Author's opinion of the current recusal system

Answer Anticipation/Relevant Lines:
We circle yet again back to Paragraph 2! That's where the Author highlighted her problems with the current system, and we've gotten a lot of mileage out of noting that.

There, the Author presented two primary objections. First, the current rules are too vague to provide adequate guidance, failing to even state whose viewpoint or interpretation should be used to view the facts (Lines 12-16). Second, they focus too much on the appearance of bias (Lines 16-18), leaving open the possibility that actual bias that's not outwardly obvious could be overlooked (Lines 22-24).

The correct answer should line up with these problems.

Answer Explanation:
(Lines 5-7; Lines 22-24) First, note the difference in language between this answer and answers (C) and (D). Those answers said something "rarely" happens, while this answer talks about things that "sometimes" happen. The former requires a statement of frequency, while the latter just requires a statement that it happens. And we have statements backing up both parts of these answers. The Author keeps harping on the current system focusing on the appearance of bias instead of bias itself, so she believes that it sometimes happens that a judge who appears biased isn't, but is still removed from a case. And she ends Paragraph 2 by noting that focusing on appearances may cause actual bias that's not outwardly obvious to be overlooked. This answer is therefore correct.

Key Takeaway:
Here's a general rule of thumb—on RC, weaker is better. This is because weaker statements require less evidence to back up. Here, we had three answers that were rather similar, but two were stronger than the third ("rarely" versus "sometimes"). That's a point in favor of the third answer!