Reading comp PrepTest 153 · Section 4 · Question 19

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

Which one of the Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: E

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

Question Type

Legal

Answer choices

  1. A
    the institutional considerations balanced Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited
    Incorrect. (Line 5) This shows up in Passage A as a part of the Legal Theorists's argument.
  2. B
    the possibility that judicial Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    Incorrect. Both passages debate a duty to be sincere, and behavior can't be mandated against in principle if it's unintentional, so this answer is unlikely to show up in either answer.
  3. C
    the need for transparency Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    Incorrect. (Lines 26-28) This answer lines up with both passages, and it specifically lines up with the moral principle stated in Passage A that talks about "openly" speaking, so this answer isn't limited to just Passage B.
  4. D
    the role of judicial Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited
    Incorrect. (Lines 17-19) This was one of the two examples given of a benefit of judicial candor in Passage A.
  5. E
    restraints on judicial abuse Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E matches the stem
    Correct. Question Type:
    Must Be True

    Strategy Overview:
    Use our notations and overall understanding of the passage to narrow this down, and then use the passages themselves to find the correct answer

    Answer Anticipation/Relevant Lines:
    There's no guidance as to what the correct answer here is going to be—it could be a larger point, or it could be a small detail. It's going to be nearly impossible to anticipate exactly the correct answer, so we should instead use our overall understanding of the passages to narrow down the answer choices.

    That process has two aspects to it. First, we can eliminate any answer that we know shows up in Passage A. Second, we can eliminate any answer that doesn't line up with what we know about Passage B. Then, for answers that survive this first consideration, we need to dive in to check them against Passage B. And if there's more than one answer that shows up there, we need to compare them against Passage A to see which one shows up there, as well.

    Answer Explanation:
    (Lines 38-43) Passage B raises a lack of candor as removing constraints on judicial power. Passage A is silent on that topic, so this is the correct answer.

    Key Takeaway:
    When you get one of these "In one passage but not the other," be sure that you're eliminating answers that show up in the one the question stem says it doesn't. It's always easier to find something that exists than to show that something doesn't exist, and so eliminating answers that show up in the passage they're not supposed to is an easier process than finding the answer that doesn't show up in that passage.

What this tests

Question analytics

Based on historical answer selection rates for this question.

Answer choice distribution

  1. A 8%
  2. B 7%
  3. C 11%
  4. D 9%
  5. E Credited 65%

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

No threads yet—be the first to ask a question or share an approach.

View all discussions Start a discussion