PrepTest 110

Topic: Legal

Paragraph 1

• Paragraph note
  • Philosopher Denise Meyerson critiques the tenets of the school of thought known as Critical Legal Theory (CLS).
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Meyerson says that CLS attempts to debunk orthodox legal theory by exposing its contradictions (first sentence)
  • However, proponents of CLS make two mistakes, according to Meyerson:
    • They see contradictions where there are none (second sentence)
    • They exaggerate the threat that contradictions pose to orthodox legal theory (second sentence)
  • Author’s attitude: “views” (first sentence); “seeking to debunk” (first sentence); “Meyerson argues” (second sentence); “overrates the threat” (second sentence)

Paragraph 2

• Paragraph note
  • Meyerson argues that, just because conflicting values exist in legal situations, it does not follow that decisions between these values are necessarily arbitrary and irrational, which is what CLS proponents contend.
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • CLS: presence of conflicting means there are equally meritorious and directly opposed answers to legal questions and the choice between them is therefore arbitrary or irrational (second sentence)
  • Meyerson: just because there are conflicting values doesn’t mean a case can’t be solved; can rank the values (third sentence)
    • a lawyer’s obligation to client confidentiality can harm another party, but if you prioritize professional obligations over moral obligations, the question is resolved (fourth - fifth sentences)
  • Author’s attitude: “equally plausible but opposing” (second sentence); “necessarily be arbitrary” (second sentence); “Meyerson denies” (third sentence); “asserts” (third sentence); “conflict can be resolved” (fifth sentence); “it can be shown” (fifth sentence)

Paragraph 3

• Paragraph note
  • Meyerson argues that, even when two solutions are equally compelling, the choice between them can be rational.
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Meyerson and another critic: two equally compelling answers to a legal question vs. entirely irrational answer based on irrelevant criterion (third sentence)
    • Existence of conflict between values not as important as CLS proponents make it out to be; choice between solutions to a legal question isn’t necessarily unreasonable (fourth sentence)
  • Author’s attitude: “does not follow” (first sentence); “need not be unreasonable” (second sentence); “we should rather reflect” (third sentence); “utterly unreasonable” (third sentence); “does not have the far-reaching implications” (fourth sentence)

Paragraph 4

• Paragraph note
  • Meyerson argues that CLS proponents are wrong to contend that legal formalism entails objectivism.
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Legal formalism = belief that there is a quasi-deductive method that can give solutions to problems of legal choice (first sentence)
  • Objectivism = belief that the legal process has moral authority (first sentence)
  • Meyerson: just because the law gives a clear solution doesn’t mean is is legitimate (second sentence)
    • Analogy: in a game where participants try to steal most valuable item from a shop, you can identify the winner according to the rules, but that doesn’t mean you think the rules are morally right (second sentence)
    • CLS objection: legal system not like a game; if you apply the rules, you tacitly agree that they are valuable (third sentence)
    • Meyerson’s counter: those considerations of value are part of the game, not external to it (fourth sentence)
  • Author’s attitude: “takes issue with” (first sentence); “Meyerson claims” (second sentence); “does not demonstrate” (second sentence); “may easily identify the winner” (second sentence); “does not follow” (second sentence); “might object” (third sentence); “Meyerson replies” (fourth sentence)

Main Point: Philosopher Denise Meyerson takes issue with the ways in which the adherents of Critical Legal Studies attempt to debunk orthodox legal theory.

Paragraph 1, Sentence 2 (P1 S2) - Meyerson’s argument against CLS

P2 S2 - Meyerson’s version of CLS argument 1

P2 S3 - Meyerson’s counter 1 to CLS argument 1

P3 S1 - Meyerson’s counter 2 to CLS argument 1

P4 S1 - Meyerson’s version of CLS argument 2

P4 S2 - Meyerson’s counter to CLS argument 2

Reporting a Viewpoint: This passage uses a Reporting a Viewpoint Meta-Structure. The entire passage is seen through the lens of Denise Meyerson, a philosopher who takes issue with the arguments of the Critical Legal Studies (CLS) movement. First, the author describes how Meyerson characterizes various tenets of CLS, then summarizes how Meyerson counters and argues with those tenets. In general, according to Meyerson, the CLS movement challenges orthodox legal theory by contending that the presence of conflicting values necessarily leads to irrational and flawed legal outcomes, and that participation in formal legal proceedings entails endorsement of their moral authority. Meyerson presents philosophical arguments against these challenges, using analogy and hypothetical situations to counter the CLS proponents’ arguments.

The author’s own point of view is largely absent from this passage, though it is possible to infer, based on the fact that the author characterizes the CLS only through Meyerson’s eyes and offers no counterarguments to Meyerson’s points, that the author agrees with Meyerson.

This is a dense and complex passage, not least because its information is conveyed entirely through Meyerson’s eyes. Thus, the test-taker has to realize that it is not the author filtering the views of the CLS and characterizing them with a view to debunking them; it is Denise Meyerson, the individual whose arguments the entire passage tacitly endorses. Perspective is an important consideration when reading this passage.