- Fri Jun 03, 2016 1:35 pm
#26098
Complete Question Explanation
(See the complete passage discussion here: lsat/viewtopic.php?t=10851)
The correct answer choice is (B)
In the third and fourth paragraphs, the author suggests that if a judge is required to specify the legal reasoning underlying a given ruling, this would help to ensure well-reasoned outcomes; such transparency would also allow for complaints in the case of improper considerations.
Answer choice (A): The passage does not suggest that judicial bias will be nearly eliminated; rather, the requirement that judges make their reasoning transparent would help to ensure well-reasoned outcomes, regardless of the presence of undetected bias on the part of the judge. This answer choice contains an exaggeration.
Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. If judges have to specify the reasoning behind their rulings, and that reasoning seems sensible to a knowledgable observer, then there is no grounds for complaint (lines 46-48). The implication is that if fault could be found in said reasoning, then that could provide basis for a complaint.
Answer choice (C): The author does not claim that judge’s written explanations will usually conceal their real reasoning; the concern is that these explanations could potentially conceal the true, biased, underlying basis for a given judgment.
Answer choice (D): Public perception of judicial impartiality is not part of this discussion, so this choice fails the Fact Test and should be ruled out of contention.
Answer choice (E): This is an Opposite Answer. Under the approach suggested by the author, judges would not have to be concerned about appearances, as long as they can provide legitimate legal reasoning for their rulings.
(See the complete passage discussion here: lsat/viewtopic.php?t=10851)
The correct answer choice is (B)
In the third and fourth paragraphs, the author suggests that if a judge is required to specify the legal reasoning underlying a given ruling, this would help to ensure well-reasoned outcomes; such transparency would also allow for complaints in the case of improper considerations.
Answer choice (A): The passage does not suggest that judicial bias will be nearly eliminated; rather, the requirement that judges make their reasoning transparent would help to ensure well-reasoned outcomes, regardless of the presence of undetected bias on the part of the judge. This answer choice contains an exaggeration.
Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. If judges have to specify the reasoning behind their rulings, and that reasoning seems sensible to a knowledgable observer, then there is no grounds for complaint (lines 46-48). The implication is that if fault could be found in said reasoning, then that could provide basis for a complaint.
Answer choice (C): The author does not claim that judge’s written explanations will usually conceal their real reasoning; the concern is that these explanations could potentially conceal the true, biased, underlying basis for a given judgment.
Answer choice (D): Public perception of judicial impartiality is not part of this discussion, so this choice fails the Fact Test and should be ruled out of contention.
Answer choice (E): This is an Opposite Answer. Under the approach suggested by the author, judges would not have to be concerned about appearances, as long as they can provide legitimate legal reasoning for their rulings.
