Reading Comprehension

PT108 · S1 · P2 · Q10 Non-Objectivist Discourse

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

In recent years, a growing belief that the way society decides what to treat as true is controlled through largely unrecognized discursive practices has led legal reformers to examine the complex interconnections between narrative and law.

Topic

The impact of narrative and subjectivity on legal truth and the movement toward using personal stories to reform legal practices.

Framework

Challenge Position, Problem / Solution

Main Point

Traditional legal objectivism is flawed because it assumes an impossible neutral perspective; legal reformers are pushing for the use of personal narratives to bring more empathy and inclusiveness to legal decisions. Most Valuable Sentence: (end of P1); also, the last paragraph encapsulates the solution.

P1: The Problem with Legal Objectivism and the Myth of Neutral Truth

Recent thinkers have started questioning how society decides what is true, especially in the legal system where people have to choose between competing stories. The old approach, "objectivism," says that there's one neutral, unbiased truth, but the author argues that's unrealistic. No one can observe without some bias—everyone brings their own beliefs, experiences, and values, so objectivity is basically a myth.

P2: Societal Harm of Objectivism in Law

The real-world damage comes from the fact that only people trained to speak the language of the law get believed. People who can't "speak legal" have their stories dismissed, even if they're true.

P3: Proposed Solution—Personal Narrative as Empowerment

Legal reformers like Williams, Bell, and Matsuda want to fix this by encouraging people to tell their own stories in their own words. Rather than restricting legal discourse to cold, logical arguments, they say personal stories can build empathy and help insiders truly understand those who've been excluded, possibly leading to a more just, empathetic legal system.

10.

According to the passage, which one of the following is true about the intellectual systems mentioned in the fourth sentence of the passage?

  1. Correct

    They have long assumed the

    Why this is right

    We know these systems are rooted in objectivism, and objectivism holds that there is a single neutral description of events. And because our author disagrees with this perspective, it's reasonable to call this an assumption. "Long" might both give us pause, so this might not feel like a slam dunk on the first pass, but this passage has an Old/New framework and the objectivist perspective is the Old way. That can help us feel better about "long."

    Skill tested: Locate Detail · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

    78% picked this

  2. They have generally remained unskewed

    Unsupported Relationship

    This answer sounds great because it copies and pastes a phrase from the target reading: "unskewed by particular points of view." But in the reading, that phrase is a modifier, and it doesn't modify the intellectual systems in question. It modifies "a single neutral description of each event." So it's the descriptions of events that are unskewed, not the intellectual systems themselves. That "generally" should also give us pause. That degree isn't present in our target reading.

    16% picked this

  3. Their discursive practices have yet

    Unsupported Relationship

    The first sentence of the passage does talk about " unrecognized discursive practices" but it doesn't relate those to the intellectual systems in question.

    1% picked this

  4. They accord a privileged position

    Contradicted

    The target reading tells us objectivism assigns a privileged position to the single neutral description of events. If we ctrl F for "emotion," we find in P2 that objectivist discourse systematically disallows the language of emotion and experience. So not only is this a bit of a word salad, pulling in concepts from outside the support window, it's actually contradicted by the reading.

    5% picked this

  5. The accuracy of their basic

    Contradicted

    Our author's objection to objectivism is what's been confirmed by psychologists: "As psychologists have demonstrated, all observers bring to a situation a set of expectations, values, and beliefs that determine what the observers are able to see and hear." In other words, they confirm that there is no such thing as a neutral observer, thereby disconfirming the tenets of objectivism and the intellectual systems in question.

    1% 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