Reading Comprehension

PT10 · S3 · P3 · Q17 Legal Realists

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension question.

Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one
Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step
81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Currently, legal scholars agree that in some cases legal rules do not specify a definite outcome.

Topic

The debate over how much indeterminacy (uncertainty) exists in legal rules and judicial decisions, focusing on mainstream legal scholars versus the "realist" philosophers.

Framework

Present Debate

Main Point

While most modern legal scholars believe that indeterminacy in law is limited to a few vague cases, the earlier "realists" argued that indeterminacy is widespread, affecting both the language of legal rules and the ambiguity of judicial precedents. ( — end of paragraph 1, and explained throughout.)

P1: Two Competing Views on Legal Indeterminacy

Most current scholars say legal rules are usually clear and only sometimes vague, but an earlier group called "realists" thought that uncertainty is much more ingrained and widespread throughout the entire law.

P2: Linguistic Vagueness and Overlapping Rules

The realists believed that every legal case involves multiple overlapping rules, each with possible vagueness. This means ambiguity can crop up at many different points, making almost every legal case potentially indeterminate.

P3: Indeterminacy in Judicial Precedents

Beyond language, the realists saw even more uncertainty in how courts interpret earlier cases. The distinction between what is "essential" and "nonessential" in judicial decisions (holdings vs. dicta) is not clear-cut in practice, so later judges can reinterpret past rulings differently. This gives judges a lot of freedom (leeway) and makes it possible for them to choose conflicting rules from the same precedent, increasing indeterminacy in the legal system.

17.

The information in the passage suggests that the realists would most likely have agreed with which one of the following statements about the reaction of judges to past interpretations of a precedential case, each of which states a different legal rule?

The judges would most likely
Too Speculative: most likely overturn
It's too speculative to say that the new judges would probably overturn all the previous decisions. They might see some bad interpretations along the way, but the most recent one might still be one they agree with.
3% picked this
Correct
The judges might differ from
Why this is right
This is much more safely worded ("they might") and gets to the essence of "Wow there's a lot of indeterminacy here". Just as the previous judges picked different legal rules to justify their interpretations, these new judges would also potentially see the case differently from each other. This works well with our last sentence, "a judge faces an indeterminate legal situation in which they have to choose which rules are to govern the case at hand". Which such an indeterminate judgment call to make, it's very reasonable to think that opinions might differ.
Skill tested: Non-Author Opinion · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.
85% picked this
The judges probably would consider
Too Strong: bound by all
It's not only extreme to say they're bound by all the legal rules, but the passage actually indicated that following all the rules cited in the precedents might actually lead to a contradiction. So it's unlikely they would think, "welp, I guess ALL these previous interpretations apply, even though some of them contradict each other."
3% picked this
The judges would regard the
Too Strong: no precedents
The judges might regard the lack of unanimity simply as evidence that indeterminacy pervades the law. It's very extreme to say they would think, "Welp -- I guess there are just no precedents for this case."
1% picked this
The judges would point out
Too Speculative
It's certainly possible that the judges would point out contradictions in previous interpretations, but it's too speculative to say so definitively. If we said, "they MIGHT point out contradictions" it's a way better answer.
8% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill

LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free