Reading Comprehension

PT153 · S4 · P3 · Q15 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.

15.

Both passages allude to the possibility that a lack of judicial candor might affect which one of the following?

  1. public compliance with controversial judgments

    Out of Scope: public compliance

    Neither passage talks about how / if the public complies with controversial judgments. Passage A suggested that a lack of candor could degrade the legitimacy of the court. So, we might think to ourselves, "when people don't consider the courts legitimate, then the public stops complying with controversial judgments", but that's straying too far from the text.

    4% picked this

  2. Correct

    the institutional strength of the

    Why this is right

    Passage A says at the end of the 2nd paragraph that "proponents of judicial candor have argued that it strengthens the institutional legitimacy of the courts". So, Flip the Causal Difference-Maker logic says that if there were a lack of judicial candor, that would weaken the institutional legitimacy of the courts. Passage B says at the end of the 2nd paragraph that "lack of candor would likely be detected, and its detection would increase public cynicism about the judicial system". Is this a synonym, in meaning, for "affecting the institutional strength of the courts"? Yes, it's acceptable. When people are cynical about the judicial system, they don't think of it as a pure, well-oiled, well-intended body that achieves justice. They think of it as a broken system that administers unequal justice depending on who you are. So that's akin to losing faith in the legitimacy of the courts, which is where courts derive their institutional strength. Courts have no armies to back up their decisions, so the strength of the judicial system is dictated solely by how much people respect the court's rulings.

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

    79% picked this

  3. the ability to debate and

    Not in Passage A

    While this factor is mentioned in B, it's not mentioned in A. In A we only have these four options: - a judge's ability to weigh myriad concerns - the helpfulness of precedent to future litigants - the institutional legitimacy of the courts - the moral principle in society of thou shalt not lie

    9% picked this

  4. the guidance provided to lower

    Not in Passage B

    While this factor is mentioned in A, it's not discussed in B. Passage B never discusses lower courts.

    3% picked this

  5. the limitations imposed on judges

    Not in Passage A

    While this factor is mentioned in B, it's not mentioned in A. In A we only have these four options, nothing about "constitutions". - a judge's ability to weigh myriad concerns - the helpfulness of precedent to future litigants - the institutional legitimacy of the courts - the moral principle in society of thou shalt not lie

    4% 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