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 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 2
  • 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 3
  • 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
Passage B
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 2
  • 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 3
  • 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
Main Point:
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 allude to 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

  1. A
    public compliance with controversial Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited
    Incorrect. (Lines 17-19; Lines 48-50) The closest Passage A gets to talking about public compliance is in talking about the ability of litigants to be guided by prior decisions, not compliance with these decisions. And Passage B talks about public trust in the institution of the justice system, not its compliance with it.
  2. B
    the institutional strength of Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B matches the stem
    Correct. Question Type:
    Must Be True/Point of Agreement

    Strategy Overview:
    Review the sections of the passages that talk about the effects of judicial candor

    Answer Anticipation/Relevant Lines:
    In Passage A, the Author goes into the benefits of judicial candor in the second paragraph. There, he brings up two specific ones—the use of the reasoning by litigants and other courts as precedent, and strengthening institutional legitimacy. While he ultimately says that there's a problem with this reasoning as a basis for arguing for judicial candor, that's because of the moral implications, not because of practical ones. As such, a lack of judicial candor, according to Passage A, would undermine precedent and weaken the institutional legitimacy of courts.

    In Passage B, the second paragraph brings up two reasons that there should be a requirement for judicial candor. The first is that a lack of it makes it harder to constrain the power of judges. The second is that a lack of it can be detected by the public, increasing public cynicism and leading to "large institutional losses" (Line 56).

    Since both passages mention the threat that a lack of candor has on institutional legitimacy/public trust in the institution, the correct answer will bring that topic up.

    Answer Explanation:
    (Lines 19-20; Lines 48-50; Lines 56-57) Passage A provides examples in favor of greater candor that include strengthening institutional legitimacy, suggesting that a lack of it would weaken the legitimacy. Passage B says that a lack of candor will be detected by the public and lead to a large institutional loss. As such, both passages suggest that a lack of candor will affect institutional strength, so this answer is correct.

    Key Takeaway:
    Questions like these are deceptively time-consuming. It's time-consuming enough to find the point raised in a passage where it exists, but to go through a passage to find if it doesn't exist (and thus can be eliminated) can suck up a lot of time. To make sure you don't take too much time on these, focus on answers that line up with the main point of the passage, and rely heavily on your notes. If you didn't mark up something in at least one of the passages that reflects on an answer, assume it's wrong and move on.
  3. C
    the ability to debate Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    Incorrect. (Lines 32-34; Line 42) Passage B talks about the ability to debate, attack, and defend judicial decisions, and judges needing to face criticism and condemnation for their reasoning. Passage A, however, doesn't bring this up.
  4. D
    the guidance provided to Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited
    Incorrect. (Lines 18-19) Passage A brings up guidance to lower courts, but it's absent from Passage B.
  5. E
    the limitations imposed on Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited
    Incorrect. (Lines 45-48) Passage B says that a lack of requirement for judicial candor would mean that limitations placed on judges by the constitution wouldn't function, but Passage A is silent on the topic.

What this tests

Discussion

  • Why not B? 2 replies

    Started by Ugo-Anyanwu

View all discussions Start a discussion