PrepTest 111

[lcid:3541] Prep Test 111 LSAT — Reading Comp — S2 Reading comp

Passage

Questions 21-26  .        Ronald Dworkin argues that judges are in danger of  . uncritically embracing an erroneous theory known Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage Summary

Topic: Legal Studies


Paragraph 1

  • Paragraph note
    • Dworkin's view (judges embrace legal positivism because the only alternative, natural law, is worse)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Definition of "natural law": Judges should rule according to their moral convictions (second sentence)
    • Dworkin's view:
      • Judges are in danger of embracing the erroneous legal positivism because they mistakenly think the only alternative philosophy is natural law, which is an impermissible form of judicial activism (first and third sentences)

Paragraph 2

  • Paragraph note
    • Dworkin on legal positivism (legal questions resolved by consensus, like definitions)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Definition of "legal positivism": law and morality are completely separate; the meaning of the law is determined by social convention (first and second sentence)
    • Comparison, according to Dworkin:
      • Resolving legal questions under legal positivism is like identifying the definition of a word; the question/definition is based on whether there's a consensus on the topic (second and fourth sentence)
    • Dworkin's view
      • Under legal positivism, judges rule in trials based on what the consensus is, not on what's moral; if there's no consensus, there's no legal fact (third and fifth sentences)
      • The judge's job is to figure out if there is a consensus (last sentence)

Paragraph 3

  • Paragraph note
    • Dworkin's criticism of legal positivism (judges have to rule w/o consensus) and middle-ground proposal (use general principles/logic laws embody)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Dworkin's views:
      • Legal positivism doesn't square with the actual practice of judges, who have to make rulings when there is no consensus (first sentence)
      • Instead, judges should look to the laws' "internal logic" and general principles; these principles might involve moral judgments, but judges are still bound by the internal logic of the law (fourth through last sentences)
    • Author's attitude: "correctly sees as the error" (second sentence)

Paragraph 4

  • Paragraph note
    • Author's view (Dworkin's approach allows us to improve our interpretation of the law)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Author's views:
      • The legal positivists are wrong because the meaning of the law is more than just what people think it means (first sentence)
      • Dworkin's approach allows us to improve how we interpret the law (last sentence)
    • Author's attitude: "mistake" (first sentence), "possibility of improving" (last sentence)

Main Point: Dworkin's approach to legal interpretation — that the law should be interpreted according to its internal logic and general principles — is a promising middle ground between natural law and legal positivism.

Meta-Structure?

Resolving a Debate: This passage utilizes a Resolving a Debate Meta-structure. In such structures, the author will do just that: lay out two sides of a debate and then insert their own opinion to resolve it.

Through the work of one Ronald Dworkin, this passage introduces us to a debate between two competing philosophies of how judges should interpret the law. One view, legal positivism, holds that laws should be evaluated based on how they compare to social conventions. The other side believes that judges should rely on their sense of morality. Then we get Dworkin's theory, a sort of middle ground. He says that laws operate on internal logic and general principles, and judges should rely on these principles to interpret the law.

In a passage with a Resolving a Debate Meta-Structure, the main point will be the author's opinion on or mediation/reconciliation of the debate. In this case, the author explicitly endorses Dworkin's middle ground in the final paragraph. So, our anticipated main point is, "Dworkin's approach to legal interpretation — that the law should be interpreted according to its internal logic and general principles — is a promising middle ground between natural law and legal positivism."

Last Thoughts?

Once we have identified that the focus of the passage is a debate, it's of critical importance that we determine if the author agrees with either side. For the majority of this passage, the author is relatively "silent." There's not much to indicate which view (if either) the author holds ... until the final paragraph. In the last paragraph, the author makes an explicit endorsement. There, the author says that Dworkin's theory will open the door to better interpretations of the law. From this, we know that the author agrees with Dworkin and that is invaluable to our understanding of the passage's entire argument structure.

Question prompt

According to the passage, 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

Strategy Overview

Refer to notes or what you highlighted/underlined to locate where the passage discusses Dworkin's theory, and refer to the relevant part of the passage as needed to find that answer choice that must be true

Answer Anticipation

For questions that ask us to find a specific detail mentioned in the passage, quickly finding and reviewing that piece of information is paramount. That is why we make brief notes describing the role of each paragraph and highlight or underline definitions and the minor Meta-Structures — doing so helps us find the salient information efficiently and reliably. Once we review that part of the passage, we can look through the answer choices to see which one is best supported by what we reviewed.Here, the question asks about Dworkin's theory. Where did that show up in the passage? According to our notes, that's in the third paragraph, so we'll look there to form our anticipation. Quickly scanning that paragraph, we'll see that his approach "seeks" to validate judges' need to make legal decisions even when there is no legal consensus without succumbing to the "error of natural law theory" (P3, S1-S2). The word "seeks" suggests that this is the "goal" of Dworkin's theory. So, we'll look for an answer that says that Dworkin's theory's goal is to validate what judges have to do without resorting to natural law theory.

Answer choices

  1. A
    no evaluate previous legal Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    (A) Does this say that Dworkin's theory aims to validate what judges have to do without resorting to natural law theory?

    Not quite. This theory tries to "validate" the actions of all judges (P3, S2), not just the ones who believe in legal positivism. In fact, the passage says that many judges' actions are "incompatible" with legal positivism (P3, S1)! (A) is out.

  2. B
    to dispute the notion Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) Does this say that Dworkin's theory aims to validate what judges have to do without resorting to natural law theory?

    Not quite. Dworkin's theory says that the law has internal logic and general principles, but that's not necessarily incompatible with social consensus. The problem with legal positivism is its claim that social consensus is the only source of meaning in the law, but judges still have to make legal decisions in cases where no consensus exists (P3, S1). (B) is out.

  3. C
    to provide a theoretical Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) Does this say that Dworkin's theory aims to validate what judges have to do without resorting to natural law theory?

    Not quite. Dworkin wants to find an approach that helps judges with their actual jobs, not completely invalidate the idea of "moral intuition." In fact, if you read a little further into the third paragraph, you'll see that Dworkin says judges may sometimes need to rely on their moral intuition (P3, S6). (C) is out. 

  4. D
    to argue that legal Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) Does this say that Dworkin's theory aims to validate what judges have to do without resorting to natural law theory?

    Not quite. This uses the word "principles," which is clearly part of Dworkin's approach. But, this says that these principles are based on those held by "the original authors of the laws." That's not part of Dworkin's approach. According to our note for the third paragraph, Dworkin's approach is based on the general principles the law embodies. That's not the same thing as the original authors' principles, so we can cross off (D) without reviewing the passage.

    If we had to review the passage to confirm that (D) is wrong, we'll see that Dworkin thinks that interpretation of the law shouldn't just be based on "what people think it means, whether these people be the original authors of the law or a majority of the interpreter's peers" (P4, S1). His view holds that laws should be interpreted according to the "general principles they typically embody" (P3, S4), but those principles may not be the same as the original author's principles.

  5. E
    to validate theoretically the Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E matches the stem

    (E) Does this say that Dworkin's theory aims to validate what judges have to do without resorting to natural law theory?

    Yes! This is consistent with our anticipation, so we can select (E) and move on. Judges commonly "act as if there is a fact of the matter even in cases where there is no consensus" (P3, S1), and Dworkin's theory "seeks to validate this practice" (P3, S2).

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion