Reading Comprehension

PT153 · S4 · P3 · Q20 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.

20.

The authors would be most likely to disagree over whether

the institutional legitimacy of the
Agree
Both authors seemed aware of the potential danger of insincere judges having their insincerity detected by the public, thereby leading to a decrease in how much people trust the judicial system.
12% picked this
the opportunity to debate judicial
Unsupported Disagree Position
Passage B definitely talked about this and agrees with it. Could we support that Passage A believes that "the opportunity to debate judicial decisions does not serve to constrain the judiciary's exercise of power"? No, we can't. "The opportunity to debate" was never discussed by Passage A, so we couldn't infer A's position on this answer.
11% picked this
judges must balance a number
Unsupported Disagree Position
Passage B's final paragraph seems to support that B would agree with this. Could we support that Passage A believes that "judges do not need to balance a number of considerations when performing the functions assigned to them? No. In the 1st paragraph, Passage A tells us that people who are tolerant of judicial insincerity often cite the myriad considerations that judges must juggle. Passage A never disputes this.
6% picked this
prudential considerations are relevant to
Out of Scope
Out of Scope: nonlegal Unsupported Disagree Position This answer is so weakly worded that it's unlikely that anyone would disagree with it. Disagreeing with it would be saying, "Prudential considerations (i.e. which action would achieve the best outcomes) are never relevant to determining the right course of action in any nonlegal situation." We couldn't derive that super-extreme idea from either passage.
10% picked this
Correct
it is correct to view
Why this is right
Passage B would agree with this, because in her final paragraph she talks about how a lapse in judicial candor could be warranted in cases where it yield some net benefit. Thus, she thinks "there is a strong presumption in favor of judicial candor" (we should make our default position that judges will be candid, but be willing to tolerate exceptions; it's not an unshakable obligation). Meanwhile, Passage A's final paragraph is saying that judges should be candid simply because "the duty to speak truthfully and openly is an independent constraint on (all ) our actions". Passage A brushes aside this idea of exceptions in the name of net benefit. She says "duties of truth telling are not justified merely when they produce good outcomes (i.e we always have a duty to tell the truth)."
Skill tested: Author Opinion · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.
60% 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