Judicial Recusals

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

TopicsInferenceLaw

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

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

The current approach to recusal and disqualification of judges heavily emphasizes appearance-based analysis. Professional codes of conduct for judges typically focus on the avoidance of both impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. Judges are expected to recuse (i.e., remove) themselves from any case in which their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. In bias. In other jurisdictions, the responsibility for recusal falls upon the judge alone.

The rules provide vague guidance at best, making disqualification dependent on whether the judge’s impartiality “might reasonably be questioned,” without giving any idea of whose perspective to take or how to interpret the facts. It is a mistake for rules governing judicial ethics to focus on the appearance of justice rather than bias that are not apparent to outside observers, or even to judges themselves, to be overlooked.

The function of the law is the settlement of normative disputes. Such settlement will work only if it is well reasoned. The achievement of actual justice by the use of legal reasoning is the primary function of judges. Therefore, the best way to address concerns about judicial impartiality is to require judges required to show the legal reasoning on the basis of which their ultimate judgments were made.

A potential objection is that the reasoning given by the judge, however legally adequate, may not be the judge’s real reasoning, thus allowing for the presence of undetected bias. However, as long as a knowledgeable observer cannot find any fault with the legal reasoning provided, then there are no grounds for complaint. had hidden reasons in mind, then there is no harm on which to base a complaint.

What this question is testing

Inference

Your task

Find what must be true based on what the passage or stimulus states.

Common trap

Answers that are plausible or likely but not actually guaranteed by the text.

Winning move

Keep only the choice the statements fully support — eliminate anything that requires an extra assumption.

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

The question

11.

It can be inferred from the passage that the author would be most likely to consider which one of the following to be a weakness of statutes that

Answer choices

Contradicted1% picked this
The guidelines for applying such statutes are
The 2nd paragraph begins by saying "the rules provide vague guidance at best". Vague rules are sort of a logical opposite of excessively rigid rules.
1%
Too Strong: incompatible17% picked this
Such statutes are incompatible with a requirement that judges make their
The author isn't ever saying that we either have judges make their reasoning transparent or we have parties to a court proceeding be allowed to request disqualifications. But you can't have both. They're incompatible.
17%
Correct76% picked this
Such statutes can fail to eliminate actual bias because parties to court proceedings are not always
Why this is right
This aligns with our available support text. The author doesn't identify any weaknesses or negative things in the 1st paragraph. She talks about the weaknesses of the current system in the 2nd paragraph. The only part of the paragraph that seems to touch on the idea of "a party to a court proceeding" is that final sentence of the 2nd, which says: Focusing on appearances may cause sources of actual bias that are not apparent to outside observers to be overlooked. This matches well with this sentence. A party to a court proceeding is not always aware of sources of actual bias. They might overlook it and thus never have reason to request a disqualification of the judge, and thus fail to eliminate a judge with actual bias.
Skill tested: Inference · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.
76%
Too Strong: conflict with4% picked this
Such statutes conflict with professional codes of conduct that require judges to recuse themselves if they believe
The author isn't ever saying that we either have judges recuse themselves, or we have parties to a court proceeding be allowed to request disqualifications. But you can't have both. They conflict. The final sentence of the 1st paragraph contradicts the idea that these two things can't coexist. We heard, "in some jurisdictions, a party to a court proceeding can request disqualification (or a judge can remove themselves). In other jurisdictions the responsibility falls upon the judge alone." The use of "alone" implies that in the previous case, the judge was not alone in deciding whether or not to recuse themselves. They might decide to and/or a party to the court proceeding might request a disqualification. The responsibility for recusal is shared by judges and parties to proceedings.
4%
Unsupported Objection2% picked this
There is no guarantee that all requests for disqualification of judges
The author never complains about giving parties to a proceeding to power to request disqualification of a judge for bias, because it won't have a 100% success rate. That would be an insane complaint. "If this request process doesn't always result in requests being granted, then I don't like it." And we have no text to point to that sounds anything like that complaint.
2%

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