- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8917
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Thu Jul 21, 2016 10:37 am
#27460
Passage Discussion
The passage concerns the value of family mediation programs versus the formalized process of court adjudication. Not unsurprisingly for a Law related passage, the author provides a frank discussion of the issue at hand, showing both positives and negatives of each option before concluding that the non-court solution is better for the needs of this particular situation.
VIEWSTAMP Analysis:
The passage contains a Viewpoint neutral section followed by the presentation of three distinct perspectives. The first paragraph is viewpoint neutral, followed by discussion of the view of the supporters of court adjudication, beginning at line 17. Additionally, there is the viewpoint of the author, who believes that family mediation programs are better than court adjudication in cases of family disputes (see line 44), even though the court adjudication process has merit (see line 19). Finally, the view of the proponents of family mediation is presented, beginning on line 46.
The Structure of the passage is as follows:
This is a nicely structured passage, with a comparison between the two referenced approaches, the arguments for adjudication, followed by the reasons that mediation proponents (including the author) believe mediation to be “better suited to the unique needs of family law.”
The Arguments in the passage are mainly a set of benefits proposed by each side, with the author making the judgment that the family mediation benefits outweigh the court adjudication benefits.
The author’s Main Point is family mediation is a better solution for resolving family disputes than is court adjudication.
The clear structure of this passage, along with the well-defined viewpoints, puts us in an excellent position to answer the questions.
The passage concerns the value of family mediation programs versus the formalized process of court adjudication. Not unsurprisingly for a Law related passage, the author provides a frank discussion of the issue at hand, showing both positives and negatives of each option before concluding that the non-court solution is better for the needs of this particular situation.
VIEWSTAMP Analysis:
The passage contains a Viewpoint neutral section followed by the presentation of three distinct perspectives. The first paragraph is viewpoint neutral, followed by discussion of the view of the supporters of court adjudication, beginning at line 17. Additionally, there is the viewpoint of the author, who believes that family mediation programs are better than court adjudication in cases of family disputes (see line 44), even though the court adjudication process has merit (see line 19). Finally, the view of the proponents of family mediation is presented, beginning on line 46.
The Structure of the passage is as follows:
This is a nicely structured passage, with a comparison between the two referenced approaches, the arguments for adjudication, followed by the reasons that mediation proponents (including the author) believe mediation to be “better suited to the unique needs of family law.”
- Paragraph One:
The passage opens by explaining that family members can be assisted in dispute resolution in a variety of instances with family mediation programs, which are court-connected but significantly different than court adjudication. Whereas court decisions use formal rules in public hearings to produce binding results, family mediation is less formal, private, and not binding, and aimed at finding a mutually agreeable resolution.
Paragraph Two:
The second paragraph is dedicated to a discussion of the value of court adjudication of family disputes. The paragraph opens with the viewpoint of the supporters of court adjudication, and the author separately weighs in with the view that the supporters have some valid claims. Specifically, the supporters of the court make four claims:
- 1. Judges’ decisions explain and interpret the broader social values present in family disputes, something that family mediation can neglect.
2. The court system protects the disadvantaged and ensures full protection of an individual’s rights, whereas mediation does not guarantee full protection of rights and can be inappropriate in many instances because it is based on the notion of relatively equal parties.
3. Family mediation does not provide a formal record of the facts in a case, and thus modifying an agreement can be difficult.
4. Mediated settlements are not part of the formal system, and thus they eliminate opportunities for such cases to contribute to the development of the law and legal precedent.
Paragraph Three:
In the last paragraph, the author states the main point of the passage, namely that family mediation is a better choice for resolving family the traditional court system. The author then provides the viewpoint of the proponents of family mediation, who state that mediation is more efficient and less damaging that litigation. As an aside, note how the passage uses the terms “court adjudication,” “judge’s decisions,” “court system,” and “litigation” all to refer to the generally same idea. The use of interchangeable names is not an accident; one of the goals of the test makers is to test your ability to track related ideas within sections of text, and using this technique gives them that opportunity. Returning to the passage, the paragraph closes with a recitation of the benefits of the family mediation process. - 1. Judges’ decisions explain and interpret the broader social values present in family disputes, something that family mediation can neglect.
The Arguments in the passage are mainly a set of benefits proposed by each side, with the author making the judgment that the family mediation benefits outweigh the court adjudication benefits.
The author’s Main Point is family mediation is a better solution for resolving family disputes than is court adjudication.
The clear structure of this passage, along with the well-defined viewpoints, puts us in an excellent position to answer the questions.