Reading Comprehension

PT111 · S2 · P4 · Q24 Dworkin and Legal Positivists

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

Ronald Dworkin argues that judges are in danger of uncritically embracing an erroneous theory known as legal positivism because they think that the only alternative is a theory that they (and Dworkin) see as clearly unacceptable—natural law.

Topic

Ronald Dworkin's critique of legal positivism and natural law, and his alternative theory about how judges should interpret law.

Framework

Challenge Position (Dworkin is critiquing both legal positivism and natural law, and offering his own improved middle ground)

Main Point

Dworkin argues that both legal positivism and natural law misrepresent how judges should interpret law; instead, he proposes that judges should be guided by the internal logic and general principles embodied in a society’s laws, even consulting their own moral intuitions when appropriate, but always in accordance with the law’s internal logic—not by consensus or unchecked personal morality. The Most Valuable Sentence: End of P3:

P1: Framing the Debate & Initial Critique

Dworkin says many judges feel stuck between two flawed theories: natural law (letting judges rule by their own morals, which he thinks is bad judicial activism) and legal positivism (which he sees as more popular, but wrong).

P2: Explaining Legal Positivism

Legal positivism says law and morality are totally separate; the law’s meaning is based on social conventions, with judges acting only to find group consensus, not what is morally right.

P3: Dworkin’s Middle-Ground Approach

Dworkin thinks this consensus-only view doesn’t fit what judges and lawyers actually do. He suggests instead that good legal interpretations follow the legal system’s own internal principles—even when there’s no consensus. Judges may draw on ideas like justice and fairness, but must stay true to the law’s logic and not just follow their personal beliefs.

24.

According to the passage, which one of the following is a goal of Dworkin's theory of legal interpretation?

to evaluate previous legal interpretations
Outside Support Window: evaluate previous interpretations
Nothing in our Support Window says anything about evaluating the interpretations of judges who are sympathetic to legal positivism. It says that Dworkin's theory has a goal of validating the actual practice of judges and lawyers. According to Dworkin .... the actual practice of judges and lawyers is to act as if there is a fact of the matter even in cases where there is no consensus. The theory he proposes seeks to validate this practice without falling into what Dworkin sees as the error of natural law theory.
11% picked this
to dispute the notion that
Outside Support Window
Outside Support Window: dispute notion Too Strong: plays any role Nothing in our Support Window says anything about trying to dispute any notion. Dworkin is trying to validate the actual practice of judges/lawyers, while not sounding like natural law theory. This is a very strong thought, since it says that "social consensus plays zero role in legal interpretation". At no point in the passage is Dworkin ever arguing that. According to Dworkin .... the actual practice of judges and lawyers is to act as if there is a fact of the matter even in cases where there is no consensus. The theory he proposes seeks to validate this practice without falling into what Dworkin sees as the error of natural law theory.
9% picked this
to provide a theoretical argument
Outside Support Window
Outside Support Window: provide theoretical argument Contradicted Nothing in our Support Window says anything providing a theoretical argument. The passage said that Dworkin's theory has the goal of validating the actual practice of judges and lawyers. He is trying to avoid slipping into natural law (which does involve moral intuition), but we have no text saying he's aiming to provide a theoretical argument against using moral intuition. In fact, later in the passage we hear that Dworkin thinks that we consider the internal logic of our legal system's general principles, and doing so can involve using moral intuition.
16% picked this
to argue that legal decisions
Outside Support Window
Outside Support Window: original authors Too Strong: must Nothing in our Support Window says anything about the original authors of the law. And this is a very strong thought, since it says that "legal decisions must be based on original principles" (that's basically contradicted by the final sentence of the passage). The passage said that Dworkin's theory has the goal of validating the actual practice of judges and lawyers, while avoiding natural law theory.
14% picked this
Correct
to validate theoretically the method
Why this is right
This is our best available match for the Support Window. According to Dworkin .... the actual practice of judges and lawyers is to act as if there is a fact of the matter even in cases where there is no consensus. The theory he proposes seeks to validate this practice without falling into what Dworkin sees as the error of natural law theory.
Skill tested: Locate Detail · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.
50% 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