Reading comp PrepTest 153 · Section 4 · Question 18

Passage

Questions 14-21  . Passage A  .       Some legal theorists reject the notion that  . judges must believe what they say Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage SummaryTopic: Legal Studies

Passage A
Paragraph 1
  • Paragraph note
    • Introduce a topic for debate and an opposing view
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
    • Some legal theorists - Judges don't need to believe what they decide
    • Rationale - It ignores the context and balancing act they have to do, and it's naive/foolhardy/dangerous
Paragraph 2
  • Paragraph note
    • Pivot to arguments for other viewpoint
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
    • Other viewpoint - Judicial sincerity (judges shouldn't lie)
    • There are two ways to defend it (likely structure for rest of Passage A)
    • First way - It results in the most prudential outcomes, e.g., allowing other courts or litigants to know the reasoning, and strengthening institutional legitimacy
Paragraph 3
  • Paragraph note
    • A problem with that first defense is noted, and then the second is presented
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
    • Problem with first defense - It sets a bad precedent that lying is only bad because it leads to bad outcomes
    • Second defense - It's moral to tell the truth, so judges should do so
Passage B
Paragraph 1
  • Paragraph note
    • Background
    • A question is posed, and a (weak) answer is presented
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
    • Background - Requiring judges to give reasons for their decisions is vital
    • Question - Do judges need to believe the reasons they give?
    • Answer - There are reasons to say yes
Paragraph 2
  • Paragraph note
    • Two such reasons are given
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
    • First - All other restraints on abuse of judicial power require judges to candidly discuss their reasoning
    • Second - When they aren't candid, it can be detected and undermine faith in the judicial system
Paragraph 3
  • Paragraph note
    • A question about how good these reasons are is asked and answered
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
    • Question - Are these reasons good enough to say candor is required?
    • Answer - Probably not, but they need to be taken into account when discussing the issue, and they point in that direction
Main Point:
Passage A - There are multiple ways to defend judicial candor, but appealing to morality is a stronger argument than appealing to the benefits of it.

Passage B - It's probably the case that judges should be candid when providing reasons for their decisions.

Key Lines:

Passage A:
Lines 1-2, Lines 7-9 - Present the argument against judicial sincerity
Lines 10-11 - Present the pivot to the other view and the structure for the rest of the passage
Lines 11-12 - Present the first argument for the second view
Lines 21-24 - Present the argument against that first argument for the second view
Lines 28-31 - Present the better second argument for the second view

Passage B:
Lines 35-37 - Present the question and answer that's central to the passage
Lines 43-45 - Backing up that answer
Lines 48-50 - Another reason supporting that answer
Lines 51-55 - Revisiting how certain the Author is of her answer
Lines 59-61 - Yet another revisit of the certainty!

Meta-Structure - Relationship Between Passages:
Both passages fall into the same structure—they pose a question and then bring up answers. While the question is explicit in the second, it's implicit in the first in that two sides of a debate are brought up—so the question is one that suggests those two sides. Both ask whether there is or should be a duty for judges to believe/be candid with the reasons behind their decisions, and then they explore answers and reasons for those answers.

The key difference between them is the rationale behind the arguments in favor of judicial candor. The Author of Passage A ends up relying on a moral argument that telling the truth is right, and so judges should not lie. He does this after discussing that arguing there's a benefit to it is a problematic argument. On the other hand, the Author of Passage B relies on that cost-benefit analysis in arguing for judicial candor, so she's making an argument that A says isn't very good.

Last Thoughts:
Noting that Passage A preemptively rebuts the argument of Passage B, even though they overall align on the view that judges (probably) shouldn't lie in their decisions, will likely be key to approaching these questions.

Question prompt

Each author implies that Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: D

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Question Type

Legal

Answer choices

  1. A
    violates an unshakable rule Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited
    Incorrect. (Lines 28-31; Lines 51-55) Passage A makes a moral argument for judicial candor, which is close to lining up with this answer. However, Passage B is a lot more noncommittal as to whether such a duty exists, so this answer doesn't line up with that passage.
  2. B
    provides litigants with insufficient Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    Incorrect. (Lines 17-19) Passage A talks about guidance for litigants, but Passage B doesn't.
  3. C
    is an unavoidable product Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    Incorrect. (Lines 3-9) The closest argument we get to saying this is of the Legal Theorists mentioned in the first paragraph of Passage A, but the Author of that passage pivots away from that argument.
  4. D
    could conceivably have positive Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D matches the stem
    Correct. Question Type:
    Must Be True

    Strategy Overview:
    Look to both passages to see what they say about a lack of judicial candor

    Answer Anticipation/Relevant Lines:
    This question is essentially the same as #15! Both ask for a point of agreement about judicial candor. There, we found that both passages brought up a negative impact on institutional trust as an effect of a lack of candor, and that ended up being the correct answer, so it's unlikely that we'll get that again.

    As such, and since we already analyzed this question and anticipated an answer that's already been given, we are going to have to go in a bit blind! We'll rely on our notations to find support for answers or rule them out if they don't line up with what we know about the passages.

    Answer Explanation:
    (Lines 12-15; Lines 52-55) Passage A, in the second paragraph where it talks about benefits, suggests that there could be benefits to lying in some cases by saying that it's not demonstrably true that there are only benefits to requiring judges to tell the truth ("If it can be shown that following a general rule favoring sincerity produces the most prudential outcomes" leaves a lot of room for a lack of sincerity to have prudential outcomes.) Passage B, at the beginning of the third paragraph, brings up the existence of such cases in its question about whether judicial deception is warranted when it's beneficial. This answer shows up in both passages, so it's correct.

    Key Takeaway:
    When a question repeats in an RC passage, you're unlikely to get the same answer twice. If you didn't have a second potential answer anticipated from the first question, it's time to head to the answers and rely on your notations!
  5. E
    is likely to be Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited
    Incorrect. (Lines 19-20; Lines 48-50) Passage B says that it's detectable, but Passage A doesn't mention such detection. The closest it gets is Lines 19-20, but that says that the principle strengthens trust in the court—it doesn't talk about a lack of sincerity being detected.

What this tests

Question analytics

Based on historical answer selection rates for this question.

Answer choice distribution

  1. A 21%
  2. B 16%
  3. C 16%
  4. D Credited 33%
  5. E 15%

Deeper help

Ask follow-ups on any step

Optional AI tutor mode will let you interrogate assumptions, compare answers, and drill weak patterns without leaving the page.

Human-written explanations stay primary; AI is an add-on when you want it.

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion