Reading Comprehension

PT109 · S2 · P4 · Q28 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.

28.

According to the fourth paragraph of the passage, what specifically does Bentham characterize as preference of ignorance to knowledge?

  1. uncritical acceptance of legal conventions

    Unrelated to Goal: legal conventions

    We want something like "excluding sketchy evidence, like hearsay and interested-party testimony". That's miles away from being synonymous with uncritically (i.e. blindly) accepting legal conventions.

    2% picked this

  2. failure to weigh the advantages

    Unrelated to Goal: legal reform

    We want something like "excluding sketchy evidence, like hearsay and interested-party testimony". That's miles away from being synonymous with failing to weigh the pros of legal reform.

    1% picked this

  3. exclusion of sacramental confessions

    1/2 right, 1/2 wrong

    We want something like "excluding sketchy evidence, like hearsay and interested-party testimony". So this starts off great, but is "sacramental confessions" one of the things that Bentham wants included, because excluding them would be preferring ignorance to knowledge? No, sacramental confessions are brought up at the end of the 4th paragraph as an example of something that Bentham would actually still allow to be excluded.

    10% picked this

  4. Correct

    refusal to allow the jury

    Why this is right

    We want something like "excluding sketchy evidence, like hearsay and interested-party testimony". That testimony is definitely relevant. It's just possibly unreliable. So this description seems to match. Before Bentham, courts refused to allow the jury to hear and assess certain types of relevant testimony. Bentham proposes that we let it all in, and allow the jury to weigh the character of the evidence, because the previous system, the "alternative" of refusing to allow the jury to hear this potential evidence, was preferring ignorance to knowledge.

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

    82% picked this

  5. rejection of exceptions to Bentham’s

    Unrelated to Goal: rejecting exception Opposite

    The exceptions to Bentham's rule come at the end of the 4th paragraph, beyond our Support Window. They are things such as sacramental confessions. Rejecting that exception = sacramental confessions should still be admitted as evidence into a trial And then according to this question stem, Bentham would be arguing that "allowing sacramental confessions to be admitted as evidence" is preferring ignorance to knowledge. That doesn't make any sense. Rejecting an exception to the nonexclusion principle means that you're allowing something to be heard. You're saying "it shouldn't be excluded. It should be included", which would be picking knowledge over ignorance.

    5% 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