Reading Comprehension

PT143 · S2 · P2 · Q11 Judicial Recusals

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

The current approach to recusal and disqualification of judges heavily emphasizes appearance-based analysis.

Topic

Judicial recusal and disqualification: appearance of bias vs. addressing actual bias through judicial transparency.

Framework

Challenge Position (the author critiques the current appearance-focused approach and offers a different solution)

Main Point

Instead of focusing on the appearance of impropriety, judicial ethics rules should prioritize eliminating actual bias by requiring judges to make their legal reasoning transparent, rather than relying on disqualification motions or appearance-based standards. The Most Valuable Sentence appears in paragraph 2:

P1: Current Approach – Focus on Appearances

The passage starts by explaining that most codes and laws about judges stepping away from cases (recusal) are all about avoiding not just actual bias, but even the appearance of it. In some places, someone involved in a case can request a judge step down for bias, but in others, it's up to the judge to choose to recuse themself.

P2: Critique of the Current System

The author points out that these rules are vague and mostly worry about appearances of fairness, not actual bias. The author argues that's a mistake—focusing on appearances can miss real sources of bias that aren’t obvious to outsiders or even to judges themselves.

P3: Author's Solution – Require Transparent Legal Reasoning

Now the author argues for a better system: judges should be required to explain the legal reasoning behind their decisions, especially when they choose not to recuse themselves. Instead of filing motions about possible bias, focus should shift to whether the judge’s logic is solid and out in the open.

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 allow parties to court proceedings to request disqualification of judges for bias?

The guidelines for applying such
Contradicted
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% picked this
Such statutes are incompatible with
Too Strong: incompatible
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% picked this
Correct
Such statutes can fail to
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% picked this
Such statutes conflict with professional
Too Strong: conflict with
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% picked this
There is no guarantee that
Unsupported Objection
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% 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