Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Easy

PT110 S4 P3 Q16 Explanation

Critical Legal Studies

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension question.

TopicsLocal PurposeLaw

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Passage

Philosopher Denise Meyerson views the Critical Legal Studies (CLS) movement as seeking to debunk orthodox legal theory by exposing its contradictions. However, Meyerson argues that CLS proponents tend to see contradictions where none exist, that conflict poses to orthodox legal theory.

According to Meyerson, CLS proponents hold that the existence of conflicting values in the law implies the absence of any uniquely right solution to legal cases. CLS argues that these conflicting values generate equally plausible but opposing answers to any given legal question, and, consequently, that the choice between the conflicting answers if it can be shown that in certain cases the professional obligation overrides ordinary moral obligations.

In addition, says Meyerson, even when the two solutions are equally compelling, it does not follow that the choice between them must be irrational. On the contrary, a solution that is not rationally required need not be unreasonable. Meyerson concurs with another critic that instead of concentrating on the choice between two answer to a problem is not the only answer, opting for it can still be reasonable.

Last, Meyerson takes issue with the CLS charge that legal formalism, the belief that there is a quasi-deductive method capable of giving solutions to problems of legal choice, requires objectivism, the belief that the legal process has moral authority. Meyerson claims that showing the law to be unambiguous does not demonstrate its such considerations may be viewed as part of, not separate from, the rules of the game.

What this question is testing

Local Purpose

Your task

Identify why the author included the referenced detail at that point in the passage — its function, not its content.

Common trap

Answers that merely repeat or summarize the topic of the detail instead of describing the role it plays.

Winning move

Ask what job the detail does for the paragraph, then for the passage's broader point.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
16.

The primary purpose of the reference to a game in the last

Answer choices

  1. Out of Scope: previously4% picked this

    provide an example of how a principle has previously

    This game is purely hypothetical. It's not an example from the past in which a principle was applied.

  2. Correct92% picked this

    demonstrate a point by means of

    Why this is right

    The author is trying to show how it's possible that a legal system could produce unambiguous outcomes (solution to problems of legal choice) while not being invested with any moral authority or legitimacy. She uses this game as an analogy. In this game, the contestants are doing something immoral / illegitimate. But nevertheless there is a clear, unambiguous winner according to the game's rules. The meaning of "analogy" is when you talk about two different specific situations that share a general principle. Both the legal system and this hypothetical stealing game share the deeper principle that "having clearly definable outcomes doesn't mean that we endorse the system itself".

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

  3. Out of Scope: unimportance1% picked this

    emphasize the relative unimportance of an

    Nothing in this final paragraph is trying to emphasize that something is unimportant.

  4. Opposite1% picked this

    contrast two situations by exaggerating their

    The author is presenting two situations (legal system / stealing game) to point out their similarities.

  5. Too Strong: reprehensible2% picked this

    dismiss an idea by portraying it

    This is far too emotionally charged. Meyerson is dismissing CLS's idea that legal formalism requires the belief that the legal process has moral authority. But she's just making an intellectual argument that one idea does not imply the other. She is never accusing CLS proponents of being wretched scoundrels.

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