- Fri Jun 03, 2016 1:28 pm
#26094
Complete Question Explanation
(See the complete passage discussion here: lsat/viewtopic.php?t=10851)
The correct answer choice is (E)
In response to this Must Be True, Author’s Perspective question, we should consider the author’s reasons for objecting to the current approach to judicial recusals. Once again, passage Structure is key, as the detrimental effects of this approach are discussed primarily in the second paragraph. The chief complaint is that the current rules are too vague and overly focused on appearances. This, says the author, could cause sources of real bias to be overlooked by both observers and judges.
Answer Choice (A): The author does not discuss assurances to the general public regarding adequate protection against judicial bias. This choice does not describe the author’s concern about the current approach to recusal, and should be eliminated from contention.
Answer choice (B): The passage never mentions how the judges feel about their professional codes of conduct.
Answer Choice (C): This answer may be enticing, because the author does worry about the potential to overlook bias. However, it is not clear that this happens in “many cases.” Further, the passage does not support the assertion that judges are rarely removed for cases of bias—the focus on appearances under the current system would support the opposite inference, that such removals might not be very rare.
Answer Choice (D): This is an Opposite answer, because the author explicitly refers to the possibility, under the current system, for a judge’s bias to remain unnoticed (lines 22-24).
Answer Choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. The second part of this answer choice, which refers to the potential for real bias to be overlooked, matches our prephrase above and can easily be proven by reference to lines 22-24. As for the notion that judges are sometimes removed for bias when they shouldn’t be, we can infer that from the fact that the author wishes to leave the decision to the judges, and take the right to request disqualification away from other parties.
(See the complete passage discussion here: lsat/viewtopic.php?t=10851)
The correct answer choice is (E)
In response to this Must Be True, Author’s Perspective question, we should consider the author’s reasons for objecting to the current approach to judicial recusals. Once again, passage Structure is key, as the detrimental effects of this approach are discussed primarily in the second paragraph. The chief complaint is that the current rules are too vague and overly focused on appearances. This, says the author, could cause sources of real bias to be overlooked by both observers and judges.
Answer Choice (A): The author does not discuss assurances to the general public regarding adequate protection against judicial bias. This choice does not describe the author’s concern about the current approach to recusal, and should be eliminated from contention.
Answer choice (B): The passage never mentions how the judges feel about their professional codes of conduct.
Answer Choice (C): This answer may be enticing, because the author does worry about the potential to overlook bias. However, it is not clear that this happens in “many cases.” Further, the passage does not support the assertion that judges are rarely removed for cases of bias—the focus on appearances under the current system would support the opposite inference, that such removals might not be very rare.
Answer Choice (D): This is an Opposite answer, because the author explicitly refers to the possibility, under the current system, for a judge’s bias to remain unnoticed (lines 22-24).
Answer Choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. The second part of this answer choice, which refers to the potential for real bias to be overlooked, matches our prephrase above and can easily be proven by reference to lines 22-24. As for the notion that judges are sometimes removed for bias when they shouldn’t be, we can infer that from the fact that the author wishes to leave the decision to the judges, and take the right to request disqualification away from other parties.