PrepTest 156

[lcid:3722] Prep Test 156 LSAT — Reading Comp — S3 Reading comp

Passage

  Two competing demands we make of the law create a troubling conflict that contributes to the law's frequent failure to Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage Summary

Topic: Legal


Paragraph 1

  • Paragraph note
    • Author on the first of two conflicting demands (the law as "formalist": law is rules-based, predictable, objective)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author’s attitude
    • Cause-and-effect relationship, according to the author:
      • Two conflicting demands we place on the law cause the law to fail to deliver what we want it to (first sentence)
    • List of two competing demands on law, according to the author:
      • First item: Law should be "formalist" — rational, consistent, understandable, reliable, and blind to socioeconomic differences (second through last sentence)
    • Author's attitude: "troubling conflict" (first sentence); "frequent failure" (first sentence); "formalist system" (second sentence); "rational and rule-based" (second sentence); "deliver us from arbitrariness, irrationality, and caprice in a coherent, reasoned way" (second sentence); "should be ... capable of understanding and generally able to depend on" (third sentence); "imperative" (last sentence); "rational, consistently applied, and blind to the differing social and economic situations" (last sentence)

Paragraph 2

  • Paragraph note
    • Author on the second of two conflicting demands ("substantive": law adapts to particular contexts to promote fairness/justice)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author’s attitude
    • List of two competing demands on law, according to the author (continued from the previous paragraph):
      • Second item: Law shouldn't be an example of "extreme formalism"; instead, it should adapt to particular contexts of individual cases and derive from subjective experience to promote fairness and justice (first through last sentences)
    • Comparison, according to the author:
      • "[M]erely procedural" law is contrasted with substantive (fair and equitable) law (second sentence)
    • Example of our demand that law must adapt to particular cases, according to the author:
      • The strict application of unchangeable rules should not decide cases (fifth sentence)
    • Author's attitude: "sensitive to the particular contexts" (first sentence); "of little use" (second sentence); "cannot deliver" (second sentence); "need not" (third sentence); "must" (fourth sentence); "can accept as legitimate and justifiable according to some common understanding of fairness and justice" (fourth sentence); "should not ... based strictly on the application of unalterable rules" (fifth sentence); "extreme formalism" (sixth sentence); "speaks little to the substance of justice" (sixth sentence); "imperative" (last sentence); "derive from and relate to subjective experience" (last sentence)

Paragraph 3

  • Paragraph note
    • Author's reconciliation (we can't reconcile both until there is true equality, so we should abandon formalism)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author’s attitude
    • Author's view:
      • Trying to reconcile formalism and substantive justice in a society that lacks social equality is bound to fail or even promote injustice (first through third sentences)
      • Therefore, we should abandon formalism so the law can adapt to social realities (fourth through last sentences)
    • Author's attitude: "seems" (first sentence); "irreconcilable tension" (first sentence); "bound to fail" (second sentence); "cannot" (second sentence); "may very well" (third sentence); "required" (fourth sentence); "formalism should be abandoned" (fourth sentence); "misguided project" (last sentence)

Main Point: The law cannot promote both formalist and substantive justice in an unequal world, so we should abandon our expectations that the law be formalist.

Meta-Structure?

Paradox/Resolution: This passage uses one of the rarer Meta-Structures on the LSAT — the Paradox/Resolution Meta-Structure*. In such a passage, the author will describe a situation or belief that is paradoxical, discrepant, or counterintuitive. In this passage, the author uses the first two paragraphs to describe the conflicting, paradoxical demands we place on the law. We expect the law to be both "formalist" (rules-based, predictable, objective) and "substantive" (adaptable, equitable, subjective). The author ultimately resolves this paradox in the last paragraph. The author claims that trying to reconcile formalism and substantive justice in a society that lacks true equality is bound to fail or even promote injustice. So, the author concludes that we should no longer demand that the law promotes "formalism" so we can allow the law to adapt to social realities.

In a Paradox/Resolution passage, the main point is typically the author's resolution. To identify the main point, we can look for the part of the passage where the author summarizes their resolution. The author uses the passage's last two sentences to summarize their resolution, so we can use those to answer any question that requires us to know the main point. Or, we can use our summary of that resolution, as we did for our anticipated main point: "The law cannot promote both formalist and substantive justice in an unequal world, so we should abandon our expectations that the law be formalist."

*That said, a few other Meta-Structures could apply to this passage. One can reasonably claim this is a Problem/Solution passage (problem: the conflicting demands of formalist and substantive justice; solution: abandon formalism). One could also claim that this is a Resolving a Debate passage (even if the debate in such a passage will typically be two arguments offered by two different groups, not two demands we place on the same thing). If you classified this passage as either, you'd still develop a helpful understanding of the passage's main point and organization.

List: As is often the case with a Paradox/Resolution passage, the two sides of the paradox are presented as two items on a list. So, this list is the passage's most prominent minor Meta-Structure. The author describes the two items on the list, the formalist and substantive demands we place on the law, in the first and second paragraphs. We should refer to our notes on those paragraphs (and the paragraphs themselves, if necessary) to answer the inevitable questions about those two items.

Last Thoughts?

This is the first passage in the section, so it will probably be the easiest passage of the four. It also has only five questions — the fewest a Reading Comp passage will have. If you are attempting to finish all four passages, it's imperative (to use one of this passage's author's favorite words) that you only dedicate six or seven minutes to this passage. We don't recommend reading the passage faster or abandoning any tasks that help you answer the questions accurately. Instead, try to speed up as you answer the questions. Make anticipations, avoid re-reading the passage as much as possible, and choose the first answer that matches your anticipation.

Question prompt

Which one of the 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.

Strategy Overview

Review the purpose of the paragraph in which the expression is found, including the expression in question, then use the purpose and the immediate context to define the expression's meaning

Answer Anticipation

This question asks what the author meant when they used the phrase "misguided project." This phrase appeared in the last paragraph, so we should start by defining the role of that paragraph, as that can sometimes provide contextual clues about the author's meaning. Our note for the last paragraph is, "Author's reconciliation (we can't reconcile both until there is true equality, so we should abandon formalism)." So, the last paragraph tells us (1) it's impossible to reconcile the law's formalist and substantive elements without true equality, and (2) we should abandon the law's formalist elements. If "misguided project" applies to either, it's the first one. So, the phrase "misguided project" probably refers to the impossibility of reconciling the law's formalist and substantive elements. Let's re-read this part of the passage with this in mind and see if our inference is correct. Now, turning our attention to the expression in question, we'll see the author says that an "attempt to reconcile formalism and substantive justice" without social equality is "a misguided project." So, our suspicions are correct. The phrase "misguided project" means we can't reconcile formalism and substantive justice in an unequal society. To remind ourselves why it's impossible, we'll need to review the beginning of the last paragraph. As the author says earlier in the paragraph, reconciliation is "bound to fail" in an unequal society because formalism "may very well perpetuate injustice" in an unequal society (P3, S2-S3). So, let's look for the answer choice that says the phrase "misguided project" refers to the impossible or potentially harmful attempt to reconcile formalism and substantive justice in an unequal society.

Answer choices

  1. A
    The project would be Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    Does this answer choice describe the impossible or potentially harmful attempt to reconcile formalism and substantive justice in an unequal society?

    Nope. Since this answer choice doesn't match our anticipation, we can cross it off. Besides, this answer choice suggests the author weighs the costs and benefits of reconciling formalism and substantive justice. The author never does that. Instead, the author says we can't reconcile the two in an unequal society — promoting formalism in an unequal society would undermine substantive justice (P3, S3).

  2. B
    Such a project is Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    Does this answer choice describe the impossible or potentially harmful attempt to reconcile formalism and substantive justice in an unequal society?

    Not quite, but this is very tempting! The author definitely thinks that attempting to reconcile formalism and substantive justice in an unequal society can have "negative consequences." Still, there are a few problems with this answer choice. First, its language is far too bold. The author says that formalism "may very well perpetuate injustice" in an unequal society (P3, S3). The phrase "may very well" suggests that formalism could result in negative consequences, not that it is "bound" to result in negative consequences. Second, the author doesn't suggest that these negative consequences are "unforseen." The author predicts that formalism could result in "injustice." For these reasons, (B) doesn't match the intended meaning of "misguided project."

  3. C
    The project lacks the Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    Does this answer choice describe the impossible or potentially harmful attempt to reconcile formalism and substantive justice in an unequal society?

    No. This answer choice doesn't match our anticipation, so we can eliminate it. Besides, this answer choice suggests the author thinks that "expert guidance" is needed to reconcile formalism and substantive justice. The author never says that. Instead, the author says we can't reconcile the two in an unequal society — formalism in an unequal society can compromise the law's ability to deliver substantive justice (P3, S3).

  4. D
    The steps necessary to Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    Does this answer choice describe the impossible or potentially harmful attempt to reconcile formalism and substantive justice in an unequal society?

    Negative. Because this answer choice doesn't match our anticipation, we can eliminate it. Plus, this answer choice suggests that the author thinks reconciling formalism and substantive justice can succeed (even if it might violate a few principles of justice along the way). However, the author never suggests that this reconciliation can succeed. The author says this reconciliation is "bound to fail" in an unequal society since formalism in an unequal society will undermine the law's capacity to produce substantive justice (P3, S2-S3).

  5. E
    Such a project cannot, Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E matches the stem

    Does this answer choice describe the impossible or potentially harmful attempt to reconcile formalism and substantive justice in an unequal society?

    Finally, yes. This matches the author's belief that it's impossible to reconcile formalism and substantive justice in an unequal society. As the author claims, such a reconciliation is "bound to fail" in an unequal society since formalism in an unequal society will undermine the law's capacity to produce substantive justice (P3, S2-S3). Because this answer choice matches our anticipation, we can select it and wrap up this question.

Discussion

No threads yet—be the first to ask a question or share an approach.

View all discussions Start a discussion