#14 - Concept Reference, Must Be True, Author's Perspective

[Administrator]

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.

[KwakuS]

Hello,

Thank you for this explanation. I am having a hard time understanding why C and D are wrong. Both of them discuss cases in which the system handles judges' biases incorrectly. To my understanding, that is what the author was trying to address. Why are these answers then consider wrong?

Thank you,
Kwaku

[atierney]

Hello,

So, for this question, I didn't find anything in the passage that mentioned answer choice C as a result under the current system. One thing to remember for these questions is that you want to try to support the answer choice with evidence from the passage, and I couldn't find any specific evidence with respect to the author considering that judges are rarely removed from cases when they are actually biased. A tip for deciding between answers that use qualifiers like "rarely": always be weary of answer choices with the more extreme qualifier, such answer choices are inherently more difficult to prove.

Accordingly, we can use this logic to eliminate answer choice D as well, since the essential difference between D and E is the use of the qualifier. Because the author doesn't focus his complaint about recusal on actual statistical facts or results, he is unlikely to agree with statements that implicitly rely upon such statistics. We don't actually know whether C or D are factually true, and, once again, nothing the author states in the passage gives rise to an indication that the author is aware/anticipates such facts.

Let me know if you have further questions.

[German.Steel]

Can you expand on how to eliminate (A)? This is tricky to me because "assure" has two common definitions: 1) tell someone something positively or confidently to dispel any doubts they may have. 2) make (something) certain to happen.

I agree that (A) can be easily dismissed under the first definition, as the author never alludes to "assurances to the general public" or anything adjacent. However, under the second definition, (A) strikes me as very well-supported, particularly by the final sentence of P2: "Focusing on appearances may cause sources of actual bias that are not apparent to outside observers, or even to judges themselves, to be overlooked." Given this statement, I must conclude that it is quite likely that the author would agree with (A), again assuming the second definition of "assure."

I grant that the second claim in (E) is well-supported by the same sentence I cited above. The first claim, on the other hand, is a little more dicey; I certainly agree that this seems to be an unstated assumption of P2, but given the much more explicit support for (A), I fail to understand how the credited response meets the stringent standards for correctness typically seen on the LSAT.

Lastly, I will concede that the language of (E) is far more supportable than the much stronger claim made in (A), and perhaps this is what it ultimately boils down to.

I've rambled on too long already...I suppose my biggest concern is around the ambiguity of how to interpret "assure" here, given the two definitions. Any advice on this issue in particular? Thanks in advance.

[evelineliu]

Hi there,

You can eliminate (A) because it is out of scope. The author does not discuss the attitudes of the general public toward the current standards. I read "assure" as "ensure" in this question.

Best,
Eveline

[German.Steel]

Hi there,

You can eliminate (A) because it is out of scope. The author does not discuss the attitudes of the general public toward the current standards. I read "assure" as "ensure" in this question.

Best,
Eveline

Thank you! However, that doesn't address the points I made at all. The question is about something the author would be most likely to agree with. My contention is that under the second definition, it is quite conceivable that the author would agree that the current standards fail to assure (anyone, the general public, the man on the moon) "that the legal system is adequately protected against judicial bias."

I think I can see why (E) is the better, more supportable answer, but I'm still unconvinced that (A) can be so easily dismissed as you are claiming.

[Adam Tyson]

The second definition you provided is not applicable in this case, German.Steel, because it would not work grammatically in that answer choice. To "assure the general public" of something fits squarely under the first definition. To use the second definition, the answer choice would have to be changed, maybe to something like "The standards in place fail to assure that the legal system is adequately protected against judicial bias."