Reading Comprehension

PT109 · S2 · P4 · Q23 Jeremy Bentham

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

By the time Bentham turned his interest to the subject, late in the eighteenth century, most components of modern evidence law had been assembled.

Topic

The evolution of evidence law, particularly Jeremy Bentham's influence on it.

Framework

Old / New

Main Point

Jeremy Bentham proposed a radical shift in evidence law, pushing for broader admissibility of evidence, and although some exclusions persist today, his ideas laid the foundation for modern evidence law. ()

P1: Historical Context of Evidence Law

Back in late 18th and 19th century, evidence law had some strange rules by today's standards, such as forbidding parties from testifying in their own cases.

P2: Nature of Evidence Exclusions

Evidence exclusions were commonplace, often for rational reasons like hearsay being unreliable, but sometimes exclusions occurred even when they should have been included.

P3: Push for Reform

Efforts to reform the complex and tradition-bound evidence law were often blocked, but Bentham proposed admitting all evidence that relates to the dispute, with few exceptions.

23.

Which one of the following is the main idea of the passage?

  1. Bentham questioned the expediency of

    Opposite: questioned

    Bentham's approach is embraced by modern evidence law. This answer is saying that he questions (negatively impugns) modern evidence law. That's not only opposite, but it's nonsensical in terms of time periods, since Bentham did his thing back in the 1700s.

    4% picked this

  2. Correct

    Bentham’s proposed reform of rules

    Why this is right

    The author overall is happy that Bentham convinced evidence law to accept most kinds of evidence, so she would happily sign off on the idea that his reform was beneficial. The old way was irrational and had a morass of evidentiary technicalities. But the author does also voice some qualms in the second to last paragraph, so it's fair that she would call it imperfect. "Imperfect" isn't much of an insult. Pretty much everything and everyone is imperfect.

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

    88% picked this

  3. Bentham’s nonexclusion principle should be

    Out of Scope: should be reexamined

    The author never has a call to action. She isn't saying that recent stuff has made us rethink whether Bentham's principle is correct. She is telling the story of how Bentham helped change evidence law from something super dumb to something much less dumb.

    3% picked this

  4. Rules of legal evidence inevitably

    Wrong Emphasis Too Strong: inevitably

    We can throw out this answer the second we see it's lacking the main character of the passage: Bentham and his nonexclusion principle.

    4% picked this

  5. Despite their impairment of judicial

    Wrong Emphasis

    We can throw out this answer the second we see it's lacking the main character of the passage: Bentham and his nonexclusion principle.

    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