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

The passage indicates that Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: A

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

Strategy Overview

Remind ourselves of the main point of the passage, then head to the answers, focusing on those that line up with the main point and then using our notes/the passage to find the correct answer

Answer Anticipation

This question asks us what must be true about a body of law that delivers merely procedural justice. We should know from our notes, main point, or memory of the passage that the more "procedural" form of justice is formalist justice. The author discusses formalist justice at length in the first paragraph and brings it up again in the third paragraph. Reviewing most of the passage to answer one question is not a good use of our limited time (especially if we are attempting to finish this passage in six or seven minutes). Instead, we’ll need to rely on our big-picture understanding of the passage to answer this question. We should start by reminding ourselves of the main point. Then, we can head to the answer choices. If something in an answer choice doesn't seem familiar and isn’t reflected in our notes on each paragraph, we shouldn’t check the passage to see if it was mentioned. Instead, we’ll table it and move on to the next answer choice. If something seems inconsistent with the main point, we can eliminate it. If something seems familiar, consistent with the main point, or reflected in our notes, we’ll use our notes/highlights/underlines to find the part of the passage that proves the answer choice must be true. If we can find that confirmation, we’ll select that answer choice and move on.

Answer choices

  1. A
    It cannot be relied Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A matches the stem

    Is this supported by what our notes or main point say about formalist justice?

    Yes! Our anticipated main point asserts that the law "cannot promote both formalist and substantive justice in an unequal world." And, according to our note for the second paragraph, substantive justice "adapts to particular contexts to promote fairness/justice." So, if formalist justice undermines substantive justice, it's true that formalist justice "cannot be relied upon to deliver results that are recognizably fair and equitable." Based on just the main point and our notes, we can justifiably select (A) and wrap up this passage.

    However, if we had the time or wanted to be extra cautious, we could review the passage to confirm that this is true. Since this answer choice contrasts substantive and formalist justice, its support probably comes from the second paragraph (since the first paragraph doesn't bring up substantive justice). We could also use the CTRL/Command + F function to search for "procedural justice." However we find the reference, we'll see that the author claims early in the second paragraph that "a body of law is of little use if it delivers justice that is merely procedural," as "it cannot deliver results in individual cases that we can recognize as fair and equitable" (P2, S2). This sentence explicitly supports answer choice (A), allowing us to select (A) and finish this passage.

  2. B
    It derives from subjective Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    Is this supported by what our notes or main point say about formalist justice?

    Nope. In fact, our notes say that formalist justice is objective, and substantive justice is subjective. The main point also states that the two forms of justice cannot be reconciled, so formalist justice cannot derive from both subjective and objective reason. Because this answer choice contradicts the main point, we can cross it off without reviewing the passage.

  3. C
    It adapts too readily Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    Is this supported by what our notes or main point say about formalist justice?

    No. In fact, our note for the second paragraph says that substantive justice is the one that "adapts." Our anticipated main point also says that substantive and formalist justice cannot be reconciled, so formalist justice does not adapt to social reality. Because this answer choice contradicts the main point, we can cross it off without reviewing the passage.

  4. D
    It takes into account Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    Is this supported by what our notes or main point say about formalist justice?

    Negative. In fact, our note for the second paragraph says that substantive justice is the form of justice that considers "particular contexts" like social and economic circumstances. Our anticipated main point also says that substantive and formalist justice cannot be reconciled, so formalist justice does consider social and economic circumstances. Because this answer choice contradicts the main point, we can cross it off without reviewing the passage.

  5. E
    It is based on Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    Is this supported by what our notes or main point say about formalist justice?

    Nope. Our note for the second paragraph says that substantive justice attempts to promote "fairness/justice." Our anticipated main point also says that substantive and formalist justice cannot be reconciled, so formalist justice is not based on a "common understanding of fairness and justice." Because this answer choice contradicts the main point, we can cross it off without reviewing the passage.

Discussion

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

View all discussions Start a discussion