Logical Reasoning

PT149 · S4 · Q19 After a judge has made the first

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning 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

After a judge has made the first ruling on a particular point of law, judges must follow that precedent if the original ruling is not contrary to the basic moral values of society.

Principle

Orig ruling not contrary judges must follow to basic moral values → that first ruling of society

No precedent + ←→ abide by own views judges views don't when deciding contradict broad public opinion

Evaluation

Gross. They gave us two rules, one of which is bi-conditional (signified by "when and only then").

One rule deals with how you judge when there is a precedent. The other deals with how you judge when there isn't a precedent. So as we look through these answers, we'll first check whether we're dealing with a situation in which there is a precedent, in which case we'll use rule 1, or whether it's a situation with no precedent, in which case we would use rule 2.

19.

Of the rulings described below, which one conforms most closely to the principles stated above?

  1. Judge Swoboda is confronted with

    Contradicts Rule 2

    Because there's no precedent, we know we're using rule 2 for this one. According to that rule, the judge is only allowed to abide by his own views if his view does not go against what is widespread public opinion (i.e. what most people believe).

    1% picked this

  2. Judge Valenzuela decides, in the

    Contradicts Rule 2 Exact Same As (A)

    Everything is the same as (A) -- no precedent, so the judge should use his own opinion unless it goes against the majority of public opinion. in which case he shouldn't use his own opinion. But here, as in (A), the judge stubbornly insists on his own opinion, flouting the mainstream view.

    4% picked this

  3. Judge Levinsky sets a legal

    Contradicts Rule 1

    Since there is already a legal precedent set by Judge L, we'll be using rule 1. As long as the original ruling didn't go against a basic rule of society, we should abide by that ruling. Instead, Judge W goes with his own views instead, even though Judge L's original ruling did not oppose basic moral values. (Also, I hope you chuckled when you read "starfish exception")

    4% picked this

  4. Correct

    Judge Watanabe must decide a

    Why this is right

    Since there's no precedent, we're using rule 2. The judge should use her own view, unless it goes against majority opinion, in which case she shouldn't use her own view. There is no majority opinion, so the judge's view does not go against majority opinion. Hence, she should rule using her own opinion on the matter, and she does.

    Skill tested: Principle-Conform · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    90% picked this

  5. Judge Balila rules against the

    Contradicts Rule 1

    Since there is a precedent, we're using rule 1. The judge should follow the precedent unless it goes against basic moral values of society. The precedent does not go against moral values, yet the judge still rejects the precedent.

    1% 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