- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8916
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Sat May 20, 2017 12:46 pm
#35203
Complete Question Explanation
Must Be True—PR. The correct answer choice is (D)
Here, the stimulus presents a set of rules dealing with the precedential effect of judicial decisions.
The first rule is that when the first judicial ruling on a particular point of law has been made, then
other judges are required to follow that precedent. However, if the ruling is contrary to the society’s
basic moral values, then judges are not required to follow it. When there is no precedent on a
particular point of law, then judges can apply their own legal views in deciding the case, but only if
their views do not contradict any widespread public opinion.
This is a Must Be True—Principle question. We are to select the answer choice that describes a
scenario conforming most closely to the rules stated in the stimulus. Our prephrase is that there are
two factual scenarios to watch out for, one in which there is a precedent and one in which there is
not. Once we figure out which of those scenarios is applicable in the answer choice, then we can
apply the appropriate rule.
Answer choice (A): Judge Swoboda violated the rule governing decisions when there is no
precedent, because he decided the case in accordance with his own legal views even though his
views were contrary to what most people believe (i.e., widespread public opinion).
Answer choice (B): Just like in answer choice (A), Judge Valenzuela violated the rule applicable in
the absence of precedent by deciding the case according to his own legal beliefs, even though his
beliefs are contrary to overwhelming public opinion.
Answer choice (C): In this answer choice, we cannot say whether Judge Levinsky acted
appropriately. However, we can state definitively that Judge Wilson violated the first rule by
disregarding Levinsky’s precedential ruling, even though it is not contrary to society’s basic moral
values.
Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. In the absence of precedent and contrary,
widespread public opinion, Judge Watanabe was entitled to decide the case according to her own
legal views.
Answer choice (E): As in answer choice (C), Judge Balila acted inappropriately by disregarding
precedent when the precedents all conform to the basic moral values of society.
Must Be True—PR. The correct answer choice is (D)
Here, the stimulus presents a set of rules dealing with the precedential effect of judicial decisions.
The first rule is that when the first judicial ruling on a particular point of law has been made, then
other judges are required to follow that precedent. However, if the ruling is contrary to the society’s
basic moral values, then judges are not required to follow it. When there is no precedent on a
particular point of law, then judges can apply their own legal views in deciding the case, but only if
their views do not contradict any widespread public opinion.
This is a Must Be True—Principle question. We are to select the answer choice that describes a
scenario conforming most closely to the rules stated in the stimulus. Our prephrase is that there are
two factual scenarios to watch out for, one in which there is a precedent and one in which there is
not. Once we figure out which of those scenarios is applicable in the answer choice, then we can
apply the appropriate rule.
Answer choice (A): Judge Swoboda violated the rule governing decisions when there is no
precedent, because he decided the case in accordance with his own legal views even though his
views were contrary to what most people believe (i.e., widespread public opinion).
Answer choice (B): Just like in answer choice (A), Judge Valenzuela violated the rule applicable in
the absence of precedent by deciding the case according to his own legal beliefs, even though his
beliefs are contrary to overwhelming public opinion.
Answer choice (C): In this answer choice, we cannot say whether Judge Levinsky acted
appropriately. However, we can state definitively that Judge Wilson violated the first rule by
disregarding Levinsky’s precedential ruling, even though it is not contrary to society’s basic moral
values.
Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. In the absence of precedent and contrary,
widespread public opinion, Judge Watanabe was entitled to decide the case according to her own
legal views.
Answer choice (E): As in answer choice (C), Judge Balila acted inappropriately by disregarding
precedent when the precedents all conform to the basic moral values of society.
Judge may abide by own legal views.