Reading Comprehension

PT110 · S4 · P3 · Q18 Critical Legal Studies

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

Philosopher Denise Meyerson views the Critical Legal Studies (CLS) movement as seeking to debunk orthodox legal theory by exposing its contradictions.

Topic

Denise Meyerson / CLS

Framework

Highlight Noteworthy

(it's pretty much a descriptive passage with an invisible author, so from the author's point of view, it's Highlight Noteworthy or Present Debate. From Denise's point of view, it's Challenge Position (she is going after the CLS viewpoints.)

Main Point

Meyerson thinks that CLS tends to see contradictions where none exist, and that CLS overrates the threat that conflict would pose to orthodox legal theory.

Summary

P1 - Intro to the Topic and Thesis

We get our Purpose Pivot (but, yet, however, recently) in the second sentence. At that point, we would think of this passage as Present Debate (CLS vs. Meyerson vs. author?)

We can see at a bird's eye view that the author never enters the conversation. Our three body paragraphs clearly indicate that this whole passage is narrating Meyerson's thoughts.

P2 - According to Meyerson .... P3 - In addition, says Meyerson ... P4 - Last, Meyerson takes issue with

P2 - Meyerson: conflicting values doesn't mean no solution

CLS thinks that since the law has conflicting values, we can generate equally plausible (yet opposing) answers to any legal question. Meyerson is saying,

P3 - Meyerson: equally compelling ≠ irrational

CLS thinks that since we sometimes get equally compelling solutions, it must be that our decision of what solution to go with is arbitrary / irrational. Meyerson is saying

P4 - Meyerson: formalism ≠ legal process has moral authority

CLS thinks that the law's typical portrayal of having "correct" solutions to legal questions implies that the legal system is capable of determining the objectively correct solution, which implies the legal system has some God-like sense of moral authority. Meyerson is saying,

f.e. The Hunger Games has one clear winner (the last person alive), but that doesn't mean The Hunger Games has moral authority as an enterprise.

18.

It can be inferred from the passage that Meyerson would be most likely to agree with which one of the following statements about "external considerations" (second-to-last sentence of the passage)?

How one determines the extent
Unsupported: relevance depends on X
In that last paragraph, she is pretty much asserting we can view these external considerations as still being part of the "rules of the game". She doesn't tie relevance to any other concept. In fact, she's not using Relative wording at all. She's talking about whether or not they're relevant (Absolute language). This answer is saying, depending on your belief in the legal process, you might think they're 40% relevant or 75% relevant. We can't support this causal link or this sliding scale between "belief in legal process" and "how relevant you think these external considerations are".
11% picked this
The extent to which these
Unsupported: relevance depends on X
In that last paragraph, she is pretty much asserting we can view these external considerations as still being part of the "rules of the game". She doesn't tie amount of relevance to any other concept. In fact, she's not using Relative wording at all. She's talking about whether or not they're relevant (Absolute language). This answer is saying, depending on your belief in the legal process, you might think they're 40% relevant or 75% relevant. We can't support this causal link or this sliding scale between "endorsement of the legal process's policies and values" and "how relevant you think these external considerations are".
24% picked this
When these considerations have more
Unsupported: more moral authority
We only use the term "moral authority" once in this final paragraph, and it is in absolute language, not relative. At no point does Meyerson every compare how much moral authority one thing has vs. another. Her whole point in this paragraph is simply that "whether or not something has moral authority" is not determined by "how clear the rules are or how clear the application of the rules are to a given situation".
4% picked this
If one uses these considerations
Opposite
Her whole point in this final paragraph is the opposite of this, that you can understand the rules of the legal process (including these external considerations) and even apply these rules to reach unambiguous solutions to legal problems, without ever needing to believe they have moral authority or desirability.
12% picked this
Correct
Whether these considerations are separate
Why this is right
This is a silly-stupid correct answer. It's certainly not trying to represent her main thought about the external considerations or even her purpose in bringing them up. On question stems that use words like inferred / implies / suggests / most likely to agree the correct answer sometimes seems to reinforce a big idea the author had, but at least as often it just provides us with some claim that can be derived from the text, even if it comes from an obscure part of the passage or doesn't represent any important idea. Can we derive that Meyerson thinks that whether these considerations are separate from or integral to "the game" of the legal process is a matter of debate? Yes, because she didn't say, Such considerations are part of, not separate from, the rules of the game. She said, Such considerations may be viewed as part of, not separate from, the rules of the game. By hedging her wording in that fashion, she's indicating that the idea is not a given. Some people may view these external considerations as really internal, but some may not. Saying "it is a matter of debate" is not the same as saying "it is a matter being debated". It just means that "it's not an established truth".
Skill tested: Non-Author Opinion · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.
49% 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