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

The authors would be Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: E

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

Question Type

Legal

Answer choices

  1. A
    the institutional legitimacy of Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited
    Incorrect. (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, but neither says that it depends on it. This answer is a bit stronger than a point that the two passages agree on, so it's incorrect.
  2. B
    the opportunity to debate Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    Incorrect. (Lines 32-35) Passage B discusses constraints on the judiciary's power, but Passage A doesn't, so the two can't disagree on it.
  3. C
    judges must balance a Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    Incorrect. (Lines 3-7) The Legal Theorists make this argument, but neither of the passage authors do, so this answer is incorrect.
  4. D
    prudential considerations are relevant Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited
    Incorrect. This answer is about some nonlegal situations, so it's not a point at issue between them since both speak primarily about legal situations. Passage A speaks to broader moral principles, but telling the truth isn't relevant in all nonlegal situations (e.g., saving a drowning person), so we can't commit the Author of that passage to an opinion on this answer.
  5. E
    it is correct to Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E matches the stem
    Correct. Question Type:
    Point at Issue

    Strategy Overview:
    Review the relationship between the passages and then find an answer that one would agree with and the other would disagree with

    Answer Anticipation/Relevant Lines:
    These Point at Issue questions in Comparative Reading Passages can be quite difficult—after all, there's a lot of content to compare! It can be even harder in a situation like this where the two sides stake out a lot of the same points.

    Reflecting on what we said before heading to the questions, we know that the main disagreement is over the best rationale for judicial candor. Passage A believes that relying on cost-benefit analyses is problematic, and that morality is the strongest argument for it. Passage B, on the other hand, grounds her argument in favor of judicial sincerity in an analysis of the costs and benefits of it missing. Let's find an answer reflecting this.

    However, we already used this analysis to lead to a correct answer in #16. So we shouldn't expect the same answer again. Let's use this analysis as a guidepost but stay a bit flexible.

    Answer Explanation:
    (Lines 26-29; Lines 52-55) Passage A appeals to a universal moral principle to support judicial candor, so there are no situations where it can be overruled. Passage B, on the other hand, says it's probably not the case that judicial candor can be supported when judicial lying has a net benefit. As such, the authors disagree on this answer, with Passage A disagreeing with it and Passage B agreeing with it.

    Key Takeaway:
    Use prior work on RC! Don't treat the questions as individual questions. Rather, treat them all as asking about the central points of the same passage(s), and thus each answer should help inform the others.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion