Reading Comprehension

PT110 · S4 · P3 · Q21 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.

21.

It can be inferred from the passage that proponents of the Critical Legal Studies movement would be most likely to hold which one of the following views about the law?

  1. It incorporates moral principles in

    Opposite: definitive solutions

    We're looking for the opposite of this, since proponents of CLS believe there is an absence of a uniquely right solution.

    17% picked this

  2. It does not necessarily imply

    Too Strong: any policies / values

    The proponents think that the law has conflicting values, but that's difference from saying the law doesn't imply approval of any values or policies.

    11% picked this

  3. Correct

    It is insufficient in itself

    Why this is right

    This does indeed come from the beginning of the 2nd paragraph. Since conflicting values in the law implies that there is not a uniquely right solution to legal cases, then we can derive that the law is insufficient to determine the answer to a legal question. Proponents say that since the law holds conflicting values, "these conflicting values generate equally plausible but opposing answers to any given legal question, and thus the choice between conflicting answers is arbitrary / irrational." The notion that we end up having to just arbitrarily pick one of the conflicting answers is also support for this answer's contention that the law was not sufficient to determine the answer. We had to add in our own arbitrary coin-flip.

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

    63% picked this

  4. It is comparable to the

    Wrong Point of View

    The idea of rules in a game comes from the final paragraph, which is getting very far from our Support Window. Meyerson actually brings up the metaphor of a game, and CLS proponents don't directly comment on it. She just speculates what "a CLS scholar might say".

    3% picked this

  5. It can be used to

    Opposite

    The entire point of the CLS proponents is that the law does not fully determine the best choice. We get conflicting answers to any legal question based on the law's conflicting values, and choosing which of these conflicting answers is the best choice "must necessarily be arbitrary or irrational".

    7% 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