PrepTest 114

[lcid:3554] Prep Test 114 LSAT — Reading Comp — S3 Reading comp

Passage

Questions 9-14  .        Intellectual authority is defined as the authority of  . arguments that prevail by virtue of good Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage Summary

Topic: Legal


Paragraph 1

  • Paragraph note
    • Background on intellectual (good arguments) and institutional authority (institutional enforcement); view that law relies on intellectual authority
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Comparison between intellectual and institutional authority, according to the author:
      • Intellectual: relies on good reasoning, not pressure or norms (first sentence)
      • Institutional: relies on the power of social institutions to enforce arguments (second sentence)
    • One judge's opinion:
      • The legal system relies on intellectual authority — in fact, courts are just "passive vehicles" for intellectual authority (last sentence)
    • Author's opinion: "especially interesting" (third sentence); "goes so far" (last sentence)

Paragraph 2

  • Paragraph note
    • View that law relies on institutional authority (and intellectual authority doesn't exist) and rebuttal (some institutional arguments don't last, some good arguments don't become institutional)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Some critics' view:
      • All intellectual authority doesn't really exist, as good arguments are really just the ones that institutions support (second sentence)
    • Author's rebuttal:
      • Some arguments supported by institutions don't stand the test of time, while some good arguments aren't accepted by institutions because they challenge institutional belief (third and last sentences)
    • Author's opinion: "can be countered that these claims break down" (third sentence); "Not all arguments ... stand the test of time" (third sentence); "some well-reasoned arguments never receive institutional imprimatur" (third sentence); "is common" (last sentence); "not the same thing" (last sentence)

Paragraph 3

  • Paragraph note
    • Institutional authority view's rebuttal (intellectual authority is based on institutional standards; musical genius example)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Some critics' view:
      • What we think is intellectual authority is actually determined by institutional standards established through consensus (first sentence)
    • Example of institutional standards established through consensus, according to critics:
      • A supposed musical genius who hasn't been recognized over several decades shouldn't be automatically considered not a genius, as "several decades" is an arbitrary unit of time established by musicologists (second through last sentences)

Paragraph 4

  • Paragraph note
    • Author's resolution (mostly institutional authority but use intellectual authority when revising precedent)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Author's view:
      • Legal systems primarily rely on institutional authority, but the ability to change past decisions when they realize that past cases were based on bad reasoning or outdated social mores allows it to exercise some intellectual authority (second and last sentences)
    • Definition of "precedent": judges decide a case a certain way because that's the way past cases have been decided (first sentence)
    • Author's attitude: "miss the crucial distinction" (second sentence), "thus played out ... leading one to draw the conclusion" (last sentence)

Main Point: Legal systems primarily rely on institutional authority, but the ability to change past decisions allows them to use intellectual authority as well.

Meta-Structure?

Resolving a Debate Meta-Structure: This follows a Resolving a Debate Meta-Structure.* The debate is set up in the first paragraph: Do legal institutions rely on intellectual authority (where arguments are accepted because they're well-reasoned and virtuous) or institutional authority (where arguments are accepted because some institution tells us to accept them)? The first, second, and third paragraphs describe a back-and-forth between those who think intellectual authority defines the legal system and those who believe the legal system rests purely on institutional authority. The author finally resolves this debate in the fourth paragraph. The author claims that, while the legal system rests primarily on institutional authority, its ability to revise precedent when judges realize past cases were based on bad reasoning or outdated social mores allows it to exercise some intellectual authority.

In passages that employ a Resolving a Debate Meta-Structure, the main point is generally the author's mediation or reconciliation of the debate. Often, the author will summarize their mediation or reconciliation in a sentence or two. This author helpfully provides such a summary in the last sentence, so we can use that to answer the inevitable Main Point question.

*We could reasonably refer to this as a Question/Answer passage, as this passage is organized around an implicit question (Do legal systems rely on intellectual or institutional authority?). We could even refer to this as a Correcting the Record or Criticizing a Viewpoint passage since the author focuses on amending the view that the legal system only rests on institutional authority. Any of these Meta-Structures will help you describe the passage's main point and organization.

Last Thoughts?

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

Strategy Overview

Review the claim that legal systems contain a significant degree of intellectual authority, determine weaknesses in that claim to anticipate how to weaken it, and select the answer choice that makes the claim less convincing

Answer Anticipation

We'll approach Weaken questions in Reading Comprehension in a very similar manner as we would in Logical Reasoning. We can review the argument from the passage, just like we'd carefully read an argument in LR. We'll then interrogate the claim for any weaknesses, as the correct answer on both RC and LR will probably weaken the claim by exploiting a problem.The claim that legal systems contain a significant degree of intellectual authority is discussed in the fourth paragraph, according to our notes. Reviewing the argument made in that paragraph, the author claims that courts exercise intellectual authority by revising or throwing out cases when they're based on bad reasoning or outdated social mores (P4, S2). This is expressed with a high degree of certainty. Overturning precedent is definitely intellectual authority, according to the author. To interrogate this claim, we can ask, could overturning precedent still be an example of institutional authority? What if the only cases the courts overturn are those that the courts decide through institutional consensus? Wouldn't overturning precedent look a lot more like an exercise of institutional authority, then?That said, many things could feasibly weaken the author's argument, so we should keep an open mind as we progress through the answer choices. We'll start by asking ourselves, "Does this weaken the author's claim that overturning precedent is an example of intellectual authority?"

Answer choices

  1. A
    Judges often act under Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    (A) Does this weaken the author's claim that overturning precedent is an example of intellectual authority?

    No. This just suggests that many cases are based on bad reasoning or outdated social mores. If other judges routinely revise these cases because they don't find them justified in their reasoning or social purpose, then the author would be correct that legal systems contain a significant degree of intellectual authority. If anything, the fact that judges mess up frequently provides the opportunity for more intellectual authority. (A) is out.

  2. B
    In some legal systems, Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) Does this weaken the author's claim that overturning precedent is an example of intellectual authority?

    No. Like (A), (B) doesn't weaken the argument. After all, the author expects courts to make faulty decisions. Sure, some courts are probably worse than others, but that's what makes intellectual authority possible! As long as judges revise or throw out cases when they aren't convinced by those cases' reasoning, the author is correct that legal systems contain a significant degree of intellectual authority. We can mark off (B).

  3. C
    Many socially inappropriate legal Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) Does this weaken the author's claim that overturning precedent is an example of intellectual authority?

    This answer choice is tempting. At first, it may seem like this is an example of how the ability to review/overturn decisions doesn't actually translate into intellectual authority. After all, if judges don't fix things until people are upset at them, it doesn't seem like good reasoning and logic are winning out.

    But let's ask ourselves a question: Why wouldn't this be an example of intellectual authority? After all, the author never said the legal system's intellectual authority had to be based on a judge's intellect. If the citizens believe that past cases are based on bad reasoning or outdated social mores, couldn't they use their intellects to persuade judges to revise those cases? Wouldn't that be an example of sound reasoning prevailing? Even if judges are the people who eventually have to throw out bad cases, they don't need to be persuaded by their own intellect to exercise intellectual authority. That intellectual authority could come from the people, as (C) suggests. For this reason, (C) is out. 

  4. D
    In some legal systems, Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) Does this weaken the author's claim that overturning precedent is an example of intellectual authority?

    No. (D) has many of the same problems as (B). The fact that some courts might be wrong more often than others simply doesn't affect our argument. As long as judges revise or throw out cases based on bad reasoning or outdated social mores, the author is correct that legal systems contain a significant degree of intellectual authority. We can mark off (D).

  5. E
    Judges are rarely willing Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E matches the stem

    (E) Does this weaken the author's claim that overturning precedent is an example of intellectual authority?

    Absolutely. The argument in the passage requires that "judges reconsider, revise, or in some cases throw out the decision" (P4, S2). If judges never fix previous mistakes, then it eliminates the vessel by which the author says "intellectual authority is introduced" (P4, S2). It would seem like judges succumb to institutional authority even when they have the opportunity to exercise intellectual authority. This weakens the author's claim that legal systems contain a significant degree of intellectual authority. So, (E) is our answer.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion