Reading Comprehension

PT153 · S4 · P3 · Q14 Judicial Reasoning

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

Passage A

Topic

Judicial candor—whether judges need to genuinely believe and honestly state the reasons for their decisions.

Framework

Present Debate

Main Point

Both passages examine whether judges should be required to be sincere and honest (show candor) in the reasons they give for their decisions. Passage A discusses two main approaches to defending judicial candor (prudential and moral), while Passage B argues that there is a strong presumption in favor of judicial candor due to its role in constraining judicial power. Most Valuable Sentences:

Passage A: (end of P3)

Passage B: (end of P3)

P1 (Passage A): Skepticism About Judicial Sincerity

Some legal scholars reject the idea that judges should truly believe what they write in their decisions, arguing that honesty can conflict with the practical demands and responsibilities judges face.

P2 (Passage A): Prudential Defense of Candor

One way to defend sincerity is by showing that it leads to good practical outcomes—like increased transparency or legitimacy—but this is a "means-to-an-end" type of justification.

P3 (Passage A): Moral Defense of Candor

The author argues that relying only on practical benefits ignores the deeper moral reasons for honesty—truth-telling is a core moral duty, not only valuable when it leads to good results.

14.

Both passages seek an answer to which one of the following questions?

  1. Should constraints on judges’ powers

    Neither Passage

    It didn't seem like either author was debating whether to increase constraints on judges' powers. They were just debating whether judges, with the existing constraints, should be candid in their judicial opinions.

    1% picked this

  2. Correct

    Must judges believe what they

    Why this is right

    Yes, this speaks to the main point of both passages. The main point of Passage A was, "Yes, they should be sincere in their opinions, for moral reasons primarily." The main point of Passage B was, "Yes, by default they should write what they candidly believe, although it's conceivable that here and there they might bend the rules for a greater good."

    Skill tested: Primary Purpose · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

    77% picked this

  3. Is judicial candor required for

    Too Strong

    Too Strong: required More Narrow than Correct Answer This feels like a potential smaller area of agreement. Given that (B) knocked directly on the main point, even if this answer were accurate we would still lean towards (B). But ultimately it's not an accurate answer choice. Passage A was never asking "is candor required for legitimacy". Passage A, in discussing how some people defend judicial candor by saying it produces healthier outcomes will cite that candor strengthens institutional legitimacy. That doesn't mean that it's required for institutional legitimacy, nor was that even really the author of passage A talking at that point in the passage.

    14% picked this

  4. Does judicial decision making need

    No Support from B

    Passage B never discusses the relationship of transparency and candor to its usefulness for future litigants.

    2% picked this

  5. Do the costs of judicial

    Unsupported Passage A

    The way this questioned is framed, you can either say "Yes, the costs outweigh the benefits. We should get rid of judicial candor". or you can say, "No the costs do not outweigh the benefits. Maybe they're tied. Maybe the benefits are greater. So, I guess keep judicial candor?" Neither answer to this question sounds as much like either author's main point as the answers to the question in (B) do. Passage A is not primarily concerned with a cost / benefit analysis in the first place. She thinks that prudential defense of candor is weak sauce. She thinks we should be more absolutist. Judges should be candor because lying is wrong. They have a duty to tell the truth, "not merely when that produces good outcomes".

    5% 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