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

Based on the passage, Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: C

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

Question Type

Legal

Strategy Overview

Consult your notes or passage to recall the author's attitude about the topic in question, and find the answer that best reflects your understanding of the author's opinion on that topic

Answer Anticipation

This question asks us to find the answer choice about the doctrine of precedent that the author would most likely agree with. We can review our notes and what we highlighted/underlined to determine where the discussion of this topic takes place. Once we locate the relevant parts of the passage, we can review those to anticipate what the correct answer might say.Looking at our notes, we'll notice the author mentions the doctrine of precedent in the fourth and final paragraph. Let's catalog what we know about the author's thoughts on the subject. Precedent is "a pure example of institutional authority" (P4, S1), but the courts' ability to review and revise precedent introduces "a significant degree of intellectual authority" (P4, S3). So, we should look for an answer choice incorporating these elements.

Answer choices

  1. A
    It is the only Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    (A) Is this consistent with the author's belief that the reliance on precedent is an example of institutional authority, but the revision of precedent is an example of intellectual authority?

    Nope. We know that the author thinks precedent is "a pure example of institutional authority" (P4, S1). Courts' ability to overturn precedent introduces the element of intellectual authority. (A) is wrong.

  2. B
    It is a useful Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) Is this consistent with the author's belief that the reliance on precedent is an example of institutional authority, but the revision of precedent is an example of intellectual authority?

    No. The author doesn't claim that precedent conflicts with intellectual authority. In fact, the author says the revision of precedent is an exercise of intellectual authority. So, the author would almost certainly disagree with this claim.

  3. C
    It is a useful Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C matches the stem

    (C) Is this consistent with the author's belief that the reliance on precedent is an example of institutional authority, but the revision of precedent is an example of intellectual authority?

    Well, the author says that the revision of precedent is an exercise of intellectual authority. We also know that the author thinks that precedent is otherwise a pure example of institutional authority. We can surmise that the author would agree that the revision of precedent is the only way to exercise intellectual authority through precedent.

    So, the author might agree that precedent is a useful tool but lacks intellectual authority if it's not used to reconsider decisions. To confirm that the author would agree with this claim, we'd have to find textual support that the author thinks precedent is useful.

    Because we already checked the passage to form our anticipation, it may be wiser to avoid checking the passage again and see if we eliminate (D) and (E). If so, we could select (C) confidently without violating the Reading Comp principle to check the passage no more than once per question.

    However, if we did review the passage again, we could see that the author says that precedent is "analogous" to the musicologist example in the third paragraph. In the third paragraph, the author says that the arbitrary standard set by musicologists is "useful" in making decisions (P3, S4). If the author thinks that the musicologists' standards are useful, the author must believe that an analogous standard in the legal system — i.e., precedent — is also useful. This provides us with the support needed to select (C) affirmatively rather than by process of elimination.

  4. D
    It is often an Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) Is this consistent with the author's belief that the reliance on precedent is an example of institutional authority, but the revision of precedent is an example of intellectual authority?

    Nope. The author thinks that judges can reconsider the intellectual authority of past decisions. Nothing prevents judges from doing that, according to the author.

  5. E
    It is an unreliable Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) Is this consistent with the author's belief that the reliance on precedent is an example of institutional authority, but the revision of precedent is an example of intellectual authority?

    Negative. The author thinks that judges can introduce intellectual authority into precedent by reconsidering and revising past decisions. The author would definitely disagree with this claim.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion