LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

Get expert LSAT preparation and law school admissions advice from PowerScore Test Preparation.

PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 8223
  • Joined: Feb 02, 2011
Complete Question Explanation
(See the complete passage discussion here: lsat/viewtopic.php?t=10851)

The correct answer choice is (C)

The last paragraph begins with one potential objection to the author’s recommendation: the possibility that a judge’s “real reasoning,” i.e. possibly biased motivations, might be hidden behind the legally adequate reasoning used to justify a case’s ultimate ruling.

Answer choice (A): The “real reasoning” refers not to the a judge’s decision against recusal, but rather to the biased reasoning underlying the judicial ruling.

Answer choice (B): Hopefully you were able to eliminate this answer choice relatively quickly, as no mention is made of arguments that are potentially too technical to understand.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice.
As discussed above, by “real reasoning” the author means the reasoning that may allow for the “presence of undetected bias” (lines 45-46). In other words, this is reasoning that is motivated by the judge’s personal feelings against the defendant.

Answer choice (D): This answer choice describes the sort of legally adequate reasoning that a judge would present to justify a ruling, not the “real reasoning” that such justification could potentially obscure.

Answer choice (E): As discussed above, the “real reasoning” refers not to the central legal principle presented by the judge, by rather to the potentially biased basis for the ruling.
  • Posts: 73
  • Joined: Mar 23, 2019
Why is A wrong? The explanation above doesn’t really seem to address the answer choice, which is talking about the underlying reasoning, not just the decision.

Thank you!!
 Zach Foreman
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 91
  • Joined: Apr 11, 2019
The "real reason" is in the context of the judges decision in the case NOT the "judge's decision against recusal". How do we know? Well, the passage specifically states that there need not be written explanation for the decision not to recuse. "judges should not be required to explain why they did not recuse themselves". (39)
If A had said " the reasoning leading to a judge’s decision for recusal" then it would have been correct and it would not be a good question. I know, a stupid technicality, but if you want to be a lawyer, you need to get used to them. :lol:

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

Analyze and track your performance with our Testing and Analytics Package.