Reading Comprehension

PT109 · S2 · P4 · Q26 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.

26.

Which one of the following statements concerning the history of the law of evidence is supported by information in the passage?

  1. Common-law rules of evidence have

    Opposite Support

    The first sentence of the passage is saying that most parts of modern evidence law were already finalized by late 1700s, so it doesn't seem like we could support the broad, strong statement that "(all) common-law rules of evidence have been replaced by modern stuff."

    11% picked this

  2. Correct

    Modern evidence law is less

    Why this is right

    This reflects the one change we know to have occurred between pre-Bentham and post-Bentham. Pre-Bentham, evidence law excluded a lot of types of evidence (testimony from the defendant, hearsay, etc.) Post-Bentham, it switched to a presumption in favor of accepting all types of evidence, unless there were "clear grounds" for excluding it. When you think about rigidity as a synonym for "no, I forbid it" vs. "sure, I'll allow it", then it's supportable to say that evidence law started loosening up when it comes to what sort of evidence it considers admissible. It's kind of like a trendy club vs. a dive bar: the trendy club's doorman is more rigid than the dive bar's.

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

    50% picked this

  3. Some current laws regarding evidence

    Out of Scope: current laws

    This answer sounds incredibly soft, safe, and reasonable, but we don't have any support for it. They never talk about current laws, other than to say "most components had been assembled by late 1700s". That doesn't allow us to say that "some components assembled after the late 1700s were not derived from common-law doctrines". We also can't act like Bentham's nonexclusion principle is a "current law", even though its spirit is reflected in modern evidence law. The final sentence of the passage clarifies that Bentham's principle was demoted from a rule (or law) to a presumption (a default preference).

    35% picked this

  4. The late eighteenth century marked

    Opposite Support

    The first sentence says that most of current evidence law was already established by the late 1700s, so how could we say the late 1700s marked the beginning of evidence law?

    4% picked this

  5. Prior to the eighteenth century,

    Opposite

    The first two sentences of the passage are telling us that 1. most of our modern evidence law was already in place in the late 1700s 2. that body of evidence law contained common-law doctrines (among them, some were bizarre) Those two ideas together essentially contradict this answer choice.

    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