Reading Comprehension

PT111 · S2 · P4 · Q26 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.

26.

It can be inferred that legal positivists, as described in the passage, agree with which one of the following statements?

Judges sometimes ought to be
Contradicted
The first sentence of the 2nd paragraph says that "law and morality are wholly distinct", and the last sentence of that paragraph says that "the judge's role is limited to discerning consensus, or the absence thereof".
8% picked this
Disagreements about the meaning of
Too Strong: never
We're told in the 2nd and 3rd sentences of the 2nd paragraph, The meaning of the law rests on social convention .... disagreement among jurists is legitimate only if it arises over what the underlying convention is So there's definitely a chance for disagreement about the meaning of a law to be legitimate.
4% picked this
The ultimate standard of interpretation
Contradicted
The ultimate standard, to logical positivists, is not the internal logic of the law (that's the author's idea) but rather social convention. In that 2nd sentence of the 2nd paragraph: the meaning of the law rests on social convention
23% picked this
Correct
The meaning of a law
Why this is right
The job of the jurists, according to logical positivists in the 2nd paragraph, is to figure out the meaning of a law. The meaning of a law rests on social convention in the same way as does the meaning of a word ... disagreement about the meaning of a word is settled by determining how people actually use it, and not by deciding what it ought to mean. So the jurists are trying to figure out the meaning of laws by thinking about how people would use the wording in that law, not by what that wording ought to mean or what moral force that law ought to have. If they all agree, "Yeah, this is what we think that law means", then they've reached a consensus and there is a legal fact of the matter. When there is no consensus, there is no legal fact of the matter. When they disagree, they're only disagreeing (legitimately) about what the underlying social convention is for the meaning of the words in this law. So since logical positivists think jurists should be coming to a consensus about what a law means (in reality, not in aspirational moral ways) and since they think that when jurists reach a consensus (but not otherwise) we get our legal fact of the matter, then it sounds like the meaning of the law is determined by the process of the jurists interpreting / deliberating / ultimately agreeing on how that law would be popularly understood. What's pretty confusing about this notion is that jurists are seemingly playing the role of middle man, interpreting what Joe Q. Public would think this law means. They are trying to agree to what society's general understanding of this law would be, so in a sense they're really thinking, "What would be an average person's interpretation of this law?" But they are also an average person! They're essentially checking within themselves to think about what it seems to mean, and if they all agree with each other then they know there's a strong social convention when it comes to understanding the meaning. So even if they're interpreting what society's understanding of a law would be, they're still doing that by reading the letter of the law, so they are still interpreting that law.
Skill tested: Author Opinion · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.
45% picked this
There is no legal fact
Wrong Trigger
In the 2nd to last sentence of the 2nd paragraph it provides a rule: When there is no consensus → no legal fact (as to the underlying social of the matter convention about what this law means) This answer is replacing that actual trigger with some notion about "differing moral convictions", but we know that the logical positivists didn't think that morality had any role to play here. Law and morality are wholly distinct.
20% 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