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. In many legal systems, legal judgments are based on competing stories about events. Without having witnessed in law from selective perception, or from subjective judgments based on prior experiences, values, and beliefs.
The societal harm caused by the assumption of objectivist principles in traditional legal discourse is that, historically, the stories judged to be objectively true are those told by people who are trained in legal discourse, while the stories of language of the law are rejected as false.
Legal scholars such as Patricia Williams, Derrick Bell, and Mari Matsuda have sought empowerment for the latter group of people through the construction of alternative legal narratives. Objectivist legal discourse systematically disallows the language of emotion and experience by focusing on cognition in its narrowest sense. These legal reformers propose replacing such by overcoming differences in background and training and forming a new collectivity based on emotional empathy.
What this question is testing
Your task
Find what must be true based on what the passage or stimulus states.
Common trap
Answers that are plausible or likely but not actually guaranteed by the text.
Winning move
Keep only the choice the statements fully support — eliminate anything that requires an extra assumption.
Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.