- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8943
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Fri Jun 03, 2016 1:37 pm
#26100
Complete Question Explanation
(See the complete passage discussion here: lsat/viewtopic.php?t=10851)
The correct answer choice is (A)
This question refers specifically to lines 49-50, but it is generally a good idea to read the entire paragraph in order to understand the quote in context. In the final paragraph, the author presents a possible objection to the suggestion that judges clarify their reasoning behind the judgment reached, or - if they seek a recusal - behind the decision to recuse themselves. But, what if a biased judge is not entirely candid in his or her legal reasoning? The author responds by pointing out that if a valid reasoning could have led a judge to a given decision, then no harm has accrued. “Under the law,” the referenced quote begins, “a right of recourse arises only if harm accrues.” In other words, the rule regarding the right of recourse is an established legal principle.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. As prephrased above, the author regards the referenced principle as an established principle of law.
Answer choice (B): The author does not assert that the referenced right of recourse is a part of the definition of the function of law. This is too broad of a claim, and cannot be proven with the information provided.
Answer choice (C): The author’s point in making reference to the right of recourse is not that judges can disguise their reasoning, but rather that such reasoning brings no real harm, so long as the reasoning is inherently valid. This choice fails the Fact Test and cannot be the right answer to this Must Be True question.
Answer choice (D): This is an Opposite answer. The author refutes the idea that her proposal is unfair by showing that if the same outcome could have been reached using valid legal reasoning, then no harm has accrued, and thus there is no basis for complaint. The principle that “a right of recourse arises only if harm accrues” is not unfair to the parties in a legal proceedings; on the contrary, it ensures that potential unfairness (i.e. “harm”) is promptly addressed.
Answer choice (E): Although the referenced principle serves to defend the author’s proposed means of addressing bias, there is no suggestion that it is central to that proposal. This answer choice contains an exaggeration and is therefore incorrect.
(See the complete passage discussion here: lsat/viewtopic.php?t=10851)
The correct answer choice is (A)
This question refers specifically to lines 49-50, but it is generally a good idea to read the entire paragraph in order to understand the quote in context. In the final paragraph, the author presents a possible objection to the suggestion that judges clarify their reasoning behind the judgment reached, or - if they seek a recusal - behind the decision to recuse themselves. But, what if a biased judge is not entirely candid in his or her legal reasoning? The author responds by pointing out that if a valid reasoning could have led a judge to a given decision, then no harm has accrued. “Under the law,” the referenced quote begins, “a right of recourse arises only if harm accrues.” In other words, the rule regarding the right of recourse is an established legal principle.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. As prephrased above, the author regards the referenced principle as an established principle of law.
Answer choice (B): The author does not assert that the referenced right of recourse is a part of the definition of the function of law. This is too broad of a claim, and cannot be proven with the information provided.
Answer choice (C): The author’s point in making reference to the right of recourse is not that judges can disguise their reasoning, but rather that such reasoning brings no real harm, so long as the reasoning is inherently valid. This choice fails the Fact Test and cannot be the right answer to this Must Be True question.
Answer choice (D): This is an Opposite answer. The author refutes the idea that her proposal is unfair by showing that if the same outcome could have been reached using valid legal reasoning, then no harm has accrued, and thus there is no basis for complaint. The principle that “a right of recourse arises only if harm accrues” is not unfair to the parties in a legal proceedings; on the contrary, it ensures that potential unfairness (i.e. “harm”) is promptly addressed.
Answer choice (E): Although the referenced principle serves to defend the author’s proposed means of addressing bias, there is no suggestion that it is central to that proposal. This answer choice contains an exaggeration and is therefore incorrect.