- Wed Feb 15, 2023 11:00 pm
#99277
Hi ikim,
Almost the entire passage is from the viewpoint of the author. The only real exception occurs at the end of the second paragraph, where the viewpoint of most US judges is given regarding a hypothetical case. While the author describes substantive reasons and formal reasons, these topics aren't really presented from the viewpoints of the proponents of one or the other of these approaches.
As far as structure, the first paragraph compares and contrasts the legal systems of England and the United States, specifically regarding their preferences for substantive vs. formal legal reasons. The second paragraph describes substantive reasons in more detail, including a hypothetical example. The third paragraph describes formal reasons in more detail, including an example. The fourth and final paragraph "presents the consequences of extreme interpretations of the two types of legal reasons discussed by the author" as Answer A of question 18 correctly describes.
The tone is fairly neutral, objective, and scholarly. The only real place where the author's tone might be said to be critical is in the final paragraph while discussing the extreme examples of the formal and substantive reasoning, which lead to outcomes that the author finds problematic.
As far as arguments, we get the substantive reason based argument in the second paragraph regarding the WWII jeep in the park, the formal reason argument in the third paragraph on why a will would be considered invalid without a written witness, and the author's (somewhat implied) argument against extreme examples of either of these legal reasons.
The main point would likely be something along the lines of "The legal system of England, which prefers using formal legal reasons to substantive reasons, differs significantly from the legal system of the United States, which prefers substantive legal reasons to formal reasons, although extreme adherence to either type of reasoning can lead to unfortunate results."
