PrepTest 143
[lcid:3669] Prep Test 143 LSAT — Reading Comp — S2
Reading comp
Passage
Questions 8-14 . The current approach to recusal and disqualification . of judges heavily emphasizes appearance-based . analysis. Professional
Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage SummaryTopic: Legal Studies
Paragraph 1
The current system of judicial recusal has several shortcomings that could be addressed by switching to a system requiring judges to write out their reasoning for decisions (recusal or otherwise).
Key Lines:
Lines 3-5 - The current system is outlined
Line 12 - The first problem with the current system is noted
Lines 16-18 - The second problem is noted
Lines 25-27 - The goal of the judicial system is noted
Lines 29-31 - The Author's recommendation/solution is presented
Lines 43-45 - A potential objection to the recommendation is stated
Lines 46-48 - The Author addresses the objection
Meta-Structure:
Problem/Solution - The Author presents several problems with the current judicial recusal system throughout Paragraph 2, and she then presents her solution to it in Paragraph 3.
Goal/Approach - The Author presents the goal of the judicial system (Lines 25-27) and then an approach on how to achieve that goal while addressing the problems with the current recusal system (Lines 29-31). This overlaps with the Problem/Solution structure.
Raise an objection to address it - The Author brings up a potential objection to her argument (Lines 43-45) in order to address it (Lines 46-48), thus strengthening her argument.
Last Thoughts:
Paragraph 2 is a bit of a tricky one, for two reasons! First, it doesn't explicitly state that it's pointing out problems with the current system—it just states problems with the current system. Second, it doesn't have transition language between the two problems, pivoting from one to the other without any linguistic indication. Sometimes, in RC, you'll need to find things that aren't explicitly stated in order to have a solid view of the structure of the passage!
Paragraph 1
- Paragraph note
- Background and description of judicial recusal
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- Recusal - real or apparent biases
- Some places - Petition for recusal
- Others - Judge recuses self
- Paragraph note
- Problems with current recusal system
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- Problem 1 - Rules are too vague
- Problem 2 - Focus on appearance means non-apparent biases might be at play
- Paragraph note
- Recommendation for new system of recusal - Reasoned decisions
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- Goal - Well-reasoned settlement of legal disputes
- Solution/Approach - Require written reasons for decision
- Judge recuses self - Written reasons for it
- Judge doesn't - Written reasons for decision in case (NOT reasons for failure to recuse)
- Paragraph note
- A potential objection to the Author's approach is addressed
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- Objection - Judge's may make up reasoning to hide bias
- Rebuttal - So what? As long as there's a good reason for the decision, motive doesn't matter (no harm)
The current system of judicial recusal has several shortcomings that could be addressed by switching to a system requiring judges to write out their reasoning for decisions (recusal or otherwise).
Key Lines:
Lines 3-5 - The current system is outlined
Line 12 - The first problem with the current system is noted
Lines 16-18 - The second problem is noted
Lines 25-27 - The goal of the judicial system is noted
Lines 29-31 - The Author's recommendation/solution is presented
Lines 43-45 - A potential objection to the recommendation is stated
Lines 46-48 - The Author addresses the objection
Meta-Structure:
Problem/Solution - The Author presents several problems with the current judicial recusal system throughout Paragraph 2, and she then presents her solution to it in Paragraph 3.
Goal/Approach - The Author presents the goal of the judicial system (Lines 25-27) and then an approach on how to achieve that goal while addressing the problems with the current recusal system (Lines 29-31). This overlaps with the Problem/Solution structure.
Raise an objection to address it - The Author brings up a potential objection to her argument (Lines 43-45) in order to address it (Lines 46-48), thus strengthening her argument.
Last Thoughts:
Paragraph 2 is a bit of a tricky one, for two reasons! First, it doesn't explicitly state that it's pointing out problems with the current system—it just states problems with the current system. Second, it doesn't have transition language between the two problems, pivoting from one to the other without any linguistic indication. Sometimes, in RC, you'll need to find things that aren't explicitly stated in order to have a solid view of the structure of the passage!
Question prompt
The author of the
Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right
Credited answer: A
The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.
Question Type
Legal
Answer choices
-
Aan established principle of Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice A matches the stem
Correct. Question Type:
Must Be True
Strategy Overview:
Review the role of the paragraph including the statement in question, then use the context of that paragraph and the immediate lines of the passage to determine how the Author views this concept
Answer Anticipation/Relevant Lines:
Lines 49-50 are in Paragraph 4, and that's where the Author raised a potential objection to her recommendation before addressing it. The pivot between those two happens in Line 46 ("However . . . "), so this is a part of her defense against the objection.
Looking at the line in question, we can see that it starts in Line 49. There, the Author states that "[u]nder the law," harm is a requirement ("only if") for a right of recourse. So the Author believes that this legal principle is an established part of the law. Let's find an answer stating that.
Answer Explanation:
(Line 49) The Author says that this principle exists "[u]nder the law," so she believes it's an established part of the law. This answer is therefore correct.
Key Takeaway:
Always know the context of the paragraph as a whole—and, if the paragraph shifts gears, the specific section in which the word/phrase/statement in question is situated. The correct answer has to reflect or at least align with that role, as it wouldn't make sense to include something that has nothing to do with that argument in that place in the passage. -
Bpart of the definition Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice B is not credited
Incorrect. Definition of the function of law? That language doesn't show up in this part of the passage at all, so this is out of scope. -
Ca tool for judges Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice C is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 52-53) The Author uses this principle to show that there's no actual harm if a judge has hidden biases but reaches a well-reasoned decision, so it can't be a tool used to hide real reasoning. -
Dunfair to parties to Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice D is not credited
Incorrect. (Line 46) Since the Author relies on this principle as a part of her defense of her recommendation, she must believe that it isn't unfair. -
Ecentral to the current Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice E is not credited
Incorrect. (Line 43) This paragraph is the Author's defense of her recommendation for a new system of recusal against a potential objection. As such, it wouldn't make sense for it to be about something central to the current system.
What this tests
Discussion
-
Started by jingjingxiao11111@gmail.com