PrepTest 153
[lcid:3711] Prep Test 153 LSAT — Reading Comp — S4
Reading comp
Passage
Questions 14-21 . Passage A . Some legal theorists reject the notion that . judges must believe what they say
Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage SummaryTopic: Legal Studies
Passage A
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
Passage A - There are multiple ways to defend judicial candor, but appealing to morality is a stronger argument than appealing to the benefits of it.
Passage B - It's probably the case that judges should be candid when providing reasons for their decisions.
Key Lines:
Passage A:
Lines 1-2, Lines 7-9 - Present the argument against judicial sincerity
Lines 10-11 - Present the pivot to the other view and the structure for the rest of the passage
Lines 11-12 - Present the first argument for the second view
Lines 21-24 - Present the argument against that first argument for the second view
Lines 28-31 - Present the better second argument for the second view
Passage B:
Lines 35-37 - Present the question and answer that's central to the passage
Lines 43-45 - Backing up that answer
Lines 48-50 - Another reason supporting that answer
Lines 51-55 - Revisiting how certain the Author is of her answer
Lines 59-61 - Yet another revisit of the certainty!
Meta-Structure - Relationship Between Passages:
Both passages fall into the same structure—they pose a question and then bring up answers. While the question is explicit in the second, it's implicit in the first in that two sides of a debate are brought up—so the question is one that suggests those two sides. Both ask whether there is or should be a duty for judges to believe/be candid with the reasons behind their decisions, and then they explore answers and reasons for those answers.
The key difference between them is the rationale behind the arguments in favor of judicial candor. The Author of Passage A ends up relying on a moral argument that telling the truth is right, and so judges should not lie. He does this after discussing that arguing there's a benefit to it is a problematic argument. On the other hand, the Author of Passage B relies on that cost-benefit analysis in arguing for judicial candor, so she's making an argument that A says isn't very good.
Last Thoughts:
Noting that Passage A preemptively rebuts the argument of Passage B, even though they overall align on the view that judges (probably) shouldn't lie in their decisions, will likely be key to approaching these questions.
Passage A
Paragraph 1
- Paragraph note
- Introduce a topic for debate and an opposing view
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
- Some legal theorists - Judges don't need to believe what they decide
- Rationale - It ignores the context and balancing act they have to do, and it's naive/foolhardy/dangerous
- Paragraph note
- Pivot to arguments for other viewpoint
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
- Other viewpoint - Judicial sincerity (judges shouldn't lie)
- There are two ways to defend it (likely structure for rest of Passage A)
- First way - It results in the most prudential outcomes, e.g., allowing other courts or litigants to know the reasoning, and strengthening institutional legitimacy
- Paragraph note
- A problem with that first defense is noted, and then the second is presented
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
- Problem with first defense - It sets a bad precedent that lying is only bad because it leads to bad outcomes
- Second defense - It's moral to tell the truth, so judges should do so
Paragraph 1
- Paragraph note
- Background
- A question is posed, and a (weak) answer is presented
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
- Background - Requiring judges to give reasons for their decisions is vital
- Question - Do judges need to believe the reasons they give?
- Answer - There are reasons to say yes
- Paragraph note
- Two such reasons are given
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
- First - All other restraints on abuse of judicial power require judges to candidly discuss their reasoning
- Second - When they aren't candid, it can be detected and undermine faith in the judicial system
- Paragraph note
- A question about how good these reasons are is asked and answered
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
- Question - Are these reasons good enough to say candor is required?
- Answer - Probably not, but they need to be taken into account when discussing the issue, and they point in that direction
Passage A - There are multiple ways to defend judicial candor, but appealing to morality is a stronger argument than appealing to the benefits of it.
Passage B - It's probably the case that judges should be candid when providing reasons for their decisions.
Key Lines:
Passage A:
Lines 1-2, Lines 7-9 - Present the argument against judicial sincerity
Lines 10-11 - Present the pivot to the other view and the structure for the rest of the passage
Lines 11-12 - Present the first argument for the second view
Lines 21-24 - Present the argument against that first argument for the second view
Lines 28-31 - Present the better second argument for the second view
Passage B:
Lines 35-37 - Present the question and answer that's central to the passage
Lines 43-45 - Backing up that answer
Lines 48-50 - Another reason supporting that answer
Lines 51-55 - Revisiting how certain the Author is of her answer
Lines 59-61 - Yet another revisit of the certainty!
Meta-Structure - Relationship Between Passages:
Both passages fall into the same structure—they pose a question and then bring up answers. While the question is explicit in the second, it's implicit in the first in that two sides of a debate are brought up—so the question is one that suggests those two sides. Both ask whether there is or should be a duty for judges to believe/be candid with the reasons behind their decisions, and then they explore answers and reasons for those answers.
The key difference between them is the rationale behind the arguments in favor of judicial candor. The Author of Passage A ends up relying on a moral argument that telling the truth is right, and so judges should not lie. He does this after discussing that arguing there's a benefit to it is a problematic argument. On the other hand, the Author of Passage B relies on that cost-benefit analysis in arguing for judicial candor, so she's making an argument that A says isn't very good.
Last Thoughts:
Noting that Passage A preemptively rebuts the argument of Passage B, even though they overall align on the view that judges (probably) shouldn't lie in their decisions, will likely be key to approaching these questions.
Question prompt
Both passages seek an
Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right
Credited answer: B
The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.
Question Type
Legal
Answer choices
-
AShould constraints on judges' Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice A is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 38-40) The Author of Passage B discusses constraints on judges, and her answers to the overarching question does suggest that she believes they should have their power constrained. However, the Author of Passage A doesn't touch on this subject, so it's not a question that both passages seek to answer. -
BMust judges believe what Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice B matches the stem
Correct. Question Type:
Main Point
Strategy Overview:
State the overlapping central question of both passages
Answer Anticipation/Relevant Lines:
While not all passages are explicitly designed to answer a question, those that do have the question and its answer(s) as the main point of those passages, generally. As such, this question should be viewed as a Main Point question.
Specifically here, we noted that both passages introduce a question and then pose 1-2 answers to it, even if the question is only implied by the debate over it.
In both cases, the central question or debate presented is whether judges should be candid/believe the reasons they give for their decisions. Let's find an answer reflecting that question/debate.
Answer Explanation:
(Lines 1-2; Lines 10-11; Lines 35-36) Passage A presents the views of theorists who believe that judges don't need to believe what they say in their opinions in the first paragraph before pivoting to arguments in favor of them believing it ("judicial sincerity") in the second. Since the debate is over whether they need to be sincere, the passage is meant to answer that question. And Passage B explicitly asks this question in Lines 35-36, so this is the correct answer.
Key Takeaway:
Question/Answer passages are common in RC, but the question isn't always explicitly posed. Any debate has, at its heart, a question, and you can view passages that have a debate through that lens. Also, questions such as this one are best tackled as Main Point questions—they rarely bring up a question that's tangential or secondary to the passages. -
CIs judicial candor required Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice C is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 19-20; Lines 55-57) The end of paragraph 2 of Passage A talks about institutional legitimacy, but it doesn't say that candor is necessary for it—just that it strengthens it. And Passage B says that "trust in the honesty of judges" is something that helps out with institutional legitimacy, but that's not the same as their candor itself being necessary to that legitimacy. Neither passage directs this head on, so it's incorrect. -
DDoes judicial decision making Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice D is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 16-19) Passage A mentions this as part of the first way to defend the principle of judicial sincerity, but it's an argument he ultimately decides has a "problem" with it. And Passage B doesn't mention litigants at all. -
EDo the costs of Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice E is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 1-2; Lines 10-11; Lines 28-31; Lines 55-61) Passage B goes through a cost-benefit analysis at the end of the passage, but Passage A never weighs in on which side of the debate is stronger or carries the day. Even Passage B only commits to a "strong presumption" of an answer!
What this tests
Discussion
-
Started by Nativeguy
-
Started by Nativeguy