Reading Comprehension

PT109 · S2 · P4 · Q24 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

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.

24.

The author's attitude toward eighteenth-century lawyers can best be described as

  1. sympathetic

    Trap

    Too Charitable (under one definition) Out of Scope (under another definition) The author seems to understand or appreciate that the vested interests of 18th century lawyers were served by maintaining the stupid evidence laws. And there is a sense in which you can acknowledge someone's perspective by saying, "I'm sympathetic to their reasoning. I get it (and I might agree with it)." But the author isn't sympathetic to their reasoning. He understand it, but he isn't saying he could be on board with it. The more typical context of having a sympathetic attitude means that you feel pity or sorrow for someone. The author is definitely not saying, "Poor lawyers. They had to struggle through that morass of evidentiary technicalities. I feel such sympathy for them."

    8% picked this

  2. Correct

    critical

    Why this is right

    The author spends the 2nd paragraph trashing evidence law, pre-Bentham. He opens the 3rd paragraph by saying, "This crap was so bad that no matter how much time or money you threw at a trial, the truth was unlikely to come out." So the author would consider this situation a bad problem that needs to be fixed. If 18th century lawyers were preventing / frustrating / impeding reform out of their own selfish vested interest, then they are not heroes. They aren't part of the solution; they're part of the problem. So we can support the idea that author would say, "Tsk tsk" in disapproval.

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

    69% picked this

  3. respectful

    Too Positive

    The only supporting text we have about these 18th century lawyers is not flattering. They were preventing evidence law from moving beyond its current state of extreme irrationality where the truth rarely came out of trials. There's no way to derive "respectful" from that.

    7% picked this

  4. scornful

    Too Strong: scornful

    If we're down to (B) and (D), we should err on the side of the less extreme one, unless we have a great text match for "scorn", which is a really harsh, scolding anger. "Scornful" implies "critical", so we would only be moved to pick (D) if we thought that (B) didn't capture the full strength of the author's venom. However, we don't really have any strong attitude word to go off. We just have context: A problem existed and these lawyers were getting in the way of fixing it, because doing so went counter to their vested interests and to the tradition of the legal profession.

    4% picked this

  5. ambivalent

    Too Undecided

    The meaning of ambivalent is "both valences - positive and negative", just like ambidextrous means "dexterity in both hands - right and left" and amphibian means "both habitats - water and land". To support it, we'd want to see the author not really sure whether to endorse something. "On the one hand [positive]. On the other hand [negative]. I don't know -- I'm a little ambivalent." The only context we have is negative, so there's nothing positive to offset that with in order to get ambivalent.

    12% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

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

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