Reading Comprehension

PT110 · S4 · P3 · Q20 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.

20.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the organization of the final paragraph in the passage?

  1. Correct

    A criticism is identified and

    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.

    52% picked this

  2. The different arguments made by

    Out of Scope

    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.

    20% picked this

  3. The arguments for and against

    Out of Scope: new position

    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.

    8% picked this

  4. A belief is presented and

    Out of Scope: practical consequences

    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.

    18% picked this

  5. Two different solutions are imagined

    Out of Scope: solutions

    There are no solutions presented in the final paragraph.

    2% 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