#18 - Specific Reference, Must Be True, Subject Perspective

[SherryZ]

Hi there! Thank you very much for your help!!

Dec 1999 LSAT Sec 3 LR, Q18:

I hesitated between B and E. I chose B but it is wrong. Could you explain why E is right but B is wrong? I did not choose E because it says "these considerations are separate from or integral to the legal process is a matter of debate". The question stem is asking for Meyerson's opinion. I located the last sentence in the last paragraph. The last sentence says that Meyerson replies that such considerations may be viewed as part of, not separate from the rules of the game." Does it mean that Meyerson has already expressed his perspective - "Considerations are part of the rules of the game"??

Thank you so much and i am looking forward to your reply!

----Sherry

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi Sherry,

You were looking at the right line, I think you just didn't quite read it right. Meyerson in the passage is acknowledging that CLS scholars take one position on the issue, but she herself would take a different position; therefore, you can infer that she thinks the matter is up for debate.

Hope that helps!

[Chris_GRZ]

Could you elaborate why B) is wrong and E) is right. I chose B) because it mentions endorsing the consideration and rules are in synergy and while E) states that the integration or separation is up for debate but in the last line meyerson says that the considerations are not separate and thus I assumed that it was not up to debate but rather certain. Is this not the case because of the word "may" which appears in the last line that brings a certain level of doubt

[James Finch]

Hi Chris,

(B) is an opposite answer to this question, as it runs directly contrary to what is stated by the author in the last paragraph ("it does not follow that the person endorses the rules of the game") where one can play and even win an immoral game without endorsing its rules. (E) is the only answer choice here with actual textual support, which makes it correct: the last two sentences make it clear that there is a debate between CLS scholars and Meyerson about "external considerations" and their exact role in the legal system, without endorsing either side.

Hope this clears things up!

[ashpine17]

I don’t understand the whole bit about external considerations? Could an instructor explain that please?

[Adam Tyson]

If it helps, ashpine17, think of those external considerations in the same way that we think of assumptions in logical reasoning. They are not explicitly included in the argument, but they are nonetheless essential to it. That's not exactly what Meyerson is arguing - she says they "may" be considered part of the rules, not that they must be - but they are similarly not in the rules but could affect our understanding of the rules. For example, how we interpret a legal rule might be influenced by some general policy that society favors, such as "we don't want citizens taking the law into their own hands, so let's not interpret this law in a way that might endorse vigilante behavior."

[ashpine17]

I honestly didn't understand diddly reading the last paragraph. Is M saying that LF---> O, meaning when you come up with a solution to a legal problem, it is morally right? And the game is an analogy to the legal process but in this case, M is showing how that is not always the case because the game is based upon stealing which is legally and morally wrong. The opponents to M say that these considerations are external, or NOT part of the game and if you abide by the legal rules, you are implicitly supporting these external values. Then the argument concludes with M saying these external considerations still MAY be part of the game, aka law and morality aren't separate.

[Robert Carroll]

ashpine,

CLS claims that legal formalism requires objectivism. Meyerson takes issue with that. So Meyerson tries to show that legal formalism does NOT require objectivism. She does so by showing a situation where unambiguous rules are used in the service of a morally illegitimate goal, so that a formality could be present without moral authority. CLS proponents claim that the morality is external, but Meyerson counters that that's at least arguable.

Mostly I like what you wrote except for thinking that Meyerson believed in the conditional LF O. CLS believes in that conditional, and Meyerson is taking issue with that.

Robert Carroll

[ashpine17]

If I have to be honest with you it took like a dozen re readings for me to even be able to write that paragraph. In real life I'd read the last paragraph and be confused to death by that abstract conditional. What do I do in that situation? I can't just give up.

[Adam Tyson]

In that situation, use context clues and remind yourself that it's not essential to understand the details of the passage. The real task in RC is to understand the logical structure of the passage and how the author's words indicate their thoughts, feelings, and beliefs.

In this case, I was very confused, like you, but I saw that Meyerson responded to the text they asked us about by saying that the external considerations "may be viewed as part of, not separate from, the rules of the game." That was in response to the CLS people claiming that they were purely external. Regardless of what the whole paragraph meant, that means Meyerson thinks that those CLS people might be wrong, and that was my prephrase. Just "the CLS proponents might be wrong about them." With that, it's not that hard to pick answer E!

Don't allow yourself to get lost in the details. Don't focus on understanding the content. I like to say that understanding is overrated, and that's because the authors of the LSAT like to baffle us with a bunch of confusing junk in an attempt to distract us from the relatively simple task of seeing what the author thinks, feels, or believes. Stay focused on that, and the nonsense mumbo jumbo in the details won't drag you down.