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

Which one of the Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: C

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

Question Type

Legal

Answer choices

  1. A
    Juries must be selected Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited
    Incorrect. This answer does establish something as a requirement ("must be"), but it doesn't state that without it, nothing else with the same goal works. Rather, it brings up a single consideration—bias.
  2. B
    Artists often complain that Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    Incorrect. This answer brings up an opposing point (artists) that feel one thing is required for their work, but the Author believes these constraints can lead to greatness.
  3. C
    The data presented in Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C matches the stem
    Correct. Question Type:
    Parallel Reasoning

    Strategy Overview:
    Head back to the relevant line, understand the situation, abstract from it, and find an answer that matches that abstraction

    Answer Anticipation/Relevant Lines:
    Our first step here should be to head back to the statement in question. The relevant statement here is that judicial candor is "an essential prerequisite" for other restraints on judicial abuse of power because all other restraints don't mean anything if judges lie.

    When dealing with any Parallel Reasoning question, regardless of section, we should identify the key logical concepts. Here, the idea that one thing is "essential" for another is a common key logical concept. In this case, one thing is noted as essential because, without it, no other things meant to accomplish the same goal work. Let's find an answer that presents a similar situation.

    Answer Explanation:
    This answer establishes that accuracy is a requirement for data to meet other elements (relevance, sufficiency) of the same goal. To make sure that data supports a scientific theory, it must first be accurate, and then be sufficient and relevant. This has the same prerequisite nature of the situation in the passage, so it's the correct answer. Looked at another way, if data isn't accurate, then it can't be relevant or sufficient; much as if judges aren't candid, then they can't be restrained by constitutions, statutes, or precedents.

    Key Takeaway:
    Parallel Reasoning questions in RC passages are unlikely to feature conditional logic, but they are likely to feature key logical elements that we can use to find the correct answer. Any aspect of the situation from the passage that you'd find relevant in an LR question should be highlighted in the RC equivalent of this question type.
  4. D
    In certain competitive activities, Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited
    Incorrect. First, this answer is about deception, which is topically similar to the situation in the passage—and that's usually a sign of a trap answer. Second, there's nothing here that's noted as being an "essential prerequisite" for something else, so this answer misses the key element of the passage.
  5. E
    In many cases, a Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited
    Incorrect. Similar to (D), this answer is about a duty to disclose information, making it topically similar to the stimulus. Here, fully and honestly discussing the possible side effects is noted as a requirement of being a doctor, but it doesn't bring up other things that are reliant on that, so it's not parallel to the stimulus.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion