Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Hard

PT110 S4 P3 Q20 Explanation

Critical Legal Studies

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

TopicsOrganizationLaw

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

Start practicing free

Free to start

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

Organization

Your task

Pin down exactly what the question asks about the passage — a detail, the author's view, the structure, or the main point — before looking at the choices.

Common trap

Answers that restate a true detail from the passage but don't answer the specific question being asked.

Winning move

Anticipate the answer in your own words from the passage, then find the choice that matches that prediction.

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

The question
20.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the organization of the final paragraph

Answer choices

  1. Correct53% picked this

    A criticism is identified and its plausibility

    Why this is right

    This is a tough answer to like on the first pass. The first half of it refers to the first 1.5 sentences. This paragraph identifies this criticism: Meyerson thinks it's wrong of CLS to think that objective solutions imply moral authority. The second half of this answer relates to the rest of the last paragraph. Investigating the plausibility of the criticism, is a synonym for "presents the debate" / "explores the rationale". We might not like this verb, if we think of investigation as connoting the idea of someone having come to a conclusion at the end, "Mr. Mueller, did your investigation find that they did or didn't commit collusion?" But investigating, as a verb, just means gathering information. The author is helping the reader to assess plausibility by "investigating it" out loud for us. Meyerson claims X in her defense. She poses this thought experiment. CLS might object Y. But Meyerson would say Z. The author is talking through this debate, so she's "litigating" the debate between Meyerson and CLS; she's helping us assess the plausibility of these positions by gathering information for us.

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

  2. Out of Scope19% picked this

    The different arguments made by two opponents of a certain viewpoint

    Out of Scope: two opponents of a viewpoint There's just Meyerson and CLS. Meyerson is one opponent of CLS's viewpoint. There isn't a second opponent of CLS. There certainly weren't two different opponents of CLS going back and forth in the final paragraph.

  3. Out of Scope: new position7% picked this

    The arguments for and against a certain position are outlined, then a new position is

    The last paragraph outlines Meyerson's argument against the position that "quasi-deductive solution methods imply that the legal process has moral authority". It never presents arguments for that position. There is one sentence in the last paragraph where we hear how a CLS supporter might respond to this argument against, but that does not count as "the argument for the position". And there is not some new position brought up to reconcile Meyerson and CLS.

  4. Out of Scope: practical consequences18% picked this

    A belief is presented and its worth is debated on the basis of

    We could say that a belief, Meyerson's, is presented in the first sentence. Is its worth debated? Not by the author, but via the author's presentation of ideas, its worth is kind of explored. Ultimately, I'd probably consider "Its worth is debated" as tied for being crappy but maybe acceptable with "its plausibility is investigated" from (A). But, the debate is entirely theoretical. The conversation is about whether X implies Y, and a hypothetical thought experiment is used to potentially show a case where X would be true but Y wouldn't. There is never an appeal to practical consequences.

  5. Out of Scope: solutions2% picked this

    Two different solutions are imagined in order to summarize

    There are no solutions presented in the final paragraph.

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