Reading Comprehension

PT143 · S2 · P2 · Q14 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.

14.

The author would be most likely to consider which one of the following to be an accurate description of the effects of the current approach to recusal and disqualification of judges?

The standards in place fail
Out of Scope
Out of Scope: fail to assure public This is a pretty tempting answer. "Failing to assure someone of X" is a pretty soft idea, because assuring someone of X is pretty strong. We might keep this on a first pass, but ultimately the author isn't saying that the problem with the current approach is that it's failing to assure the general public that we're protecting against bias -- it's that we're not actually doing a good job protecting against bias. Since the current approach "focuses on appearances", it is actually probably good at convincing people we're eliminating bias. The author isn't concerned that people are discouraged about the protections against bias. The author is concerned that the current system might leave people feeling satisfied that we've protected against bias, while "sources of actual bias that are not apparent to outside observers (like the public) go overlooked".
24% picked this
The professional codes of conduct
Out of Scope: considered meddlesome
We have no support for the notion that judges find their professional codes of conduct meddlesome or ineffective. This has nothing to do with our Support Text at the end of the 2nd paragraph.
1% picked this
Judges are rarely removed from
Too Strong: rarely / many
The end of the second paragraph is suggesting that "sources of actual bias may be overlooked", but it is a little stronger to say "in many cases, judges are allowed to sit on the case even though they're biased". More egregiously, though, is the claim that judges are rarely removed for bias when they are not actually biased. That's equivalent to saying that "most of the time that judges are removed for bias, the judge is actually biased". We don't have any text support for a claim that strong. The middle sentence of the 2nd paragraph sounds like the author thinks that "judges would be cognitively capable of handling lots of these cases they're removed from without bias. They are just taking themselves off the case (or being taken off) because of the appearance of bias."
8% picked this
Judges are rarely allowed to
Too Strong: rarely / many
Just like (C), this is using quantifiers that are more extreme than any support text we have available. Can we point to any sentence where the author is suggesting that "Most of the time when the judge is biased, they are not allowed to sit on the case"? Not really, but that's what the first half of this answer says. The final sentence of the 2nd paragraph opens up the possibility that sources of actual bias could be overlooked by outsiders, so it's possible that the author thinks that most of the time that judges are biased, they don't appear biased, and so there's no mechanism to take them off the case. Can we point to any sentence where the author suggests that judges are removed from many cases, even though they weren't biased? Somewhat. The middle sentence of the 2nd paragraph sounds like the author thinks that "judges would be cognitively capable of handling lots of these cases they're removed from without bias. They are just taking themselves off the case (or being taken off) because of the appearance of bias." If we didn't have a softer answer available, we would probably be okay with supporting the second half of this answer.
3% picked this
Correct
Judges are sometimes removed from
Why this is right
This is instantly our most lovable answer on a first pass, because of the soft language: sometimes / some instances The middle sentence of the 2nd paragraph suggests that judges are sometimes removed from cases because of the appearance of bias, even though their involvement in the case would not make them cognitively incapable of properly reaching a just outcome. The final sentence of the 2nd paragraph suggests that an actual source of bias might be present but overlooked by outside observers and even judges themselves, and thus never detected.
Skill tested: Author Opinion · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.
64% 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