Reading Comprehension

PT10 · S3 · P3 · Q18 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

Start practicing free

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.

18.

It can be inferred from the passage that most legal scholars today would agree with the realists that

  1. Correct

    linguistic vagueness can cause indeterminacy

    Why this is right

    This looks like what we were looking for, the sentiment in the first two sentences of the passage. It has lovably weak wording, since the claim is saying "in some cases, legal rules do not specify a definite outcome (there is not determinacy regarding the outcome of a litigated case)." And the 2nd sentence says that this is because of the "vagueness of language", which directly matches with "linguistic vagueness".

    Skill tested: Non-Author Opinion · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

    73% picked this

  2. in any litigated case, several

    Too Strong: any

    We don't have any support for the idea that most legal scholars think in 100% of cases, there are several different and possibly contradictory rules relevant to the case.

    6% picked this

  3. the distinction between holding and

    Out of Support Window

    Out of Support Window: holding vs. dicta We don't have anything in our Support Window about the holding vs. the dicta. We can tell this is a trap answer because it's grabbing familiar wording from a paragraph that's not being asked about. We don't know what most legal scholars have to say about these topics.

    2% picked this

  4. the boundaries of applicability of

    Half Scope: realists wouldn't agree

    While most legal scholars would agree with this (per the 3rd sentence of the passage), realists would not go along with this. They are introduced right after the 3rd sentence with "contrary to this view".

    8% picked this

  5. a common-law system gives judges

    Out of Support Window

    Out of Support Window: common law / precedents We don't have anything in our Support Window about common law or judges or precedents. We can tell this is a trap answer because it's grabbing familiar wording from a paragraph that's not being asked about. We don't know what most legal scholars have to say about these topics.

    10% 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