Two competing demands we make of the law create a troubling conflict that contributes to the law's frequent failure to deliver what we imagine it should. On one hand, we want a formalist system of law—one that is rational and rule-based, and that promises to deliver us from arbitrariness, irrationality, and caprice applied, and blind to the differing social and economic situations of those who come before it.
On the other hand, however, we want the law to be connected to social reality and sensitive to the particular contexts out of which individual cases arise. After all, a body of law is of little use if it delivers justice that is merely procedural as opposed to substantive—i.e., if it cannot in individual cases—that it derive from and relate to subjective experience as well as objective reason.
It seems, then, that we are left with an irreconcilable tension arising from the competing imperatives of formalism and substantive justice. Any attempt to accommodate both principles within the legal system is bound to fail for systemic reasons: formalism cannot produce substantive justice until there is a reasonable degree of social equality. substantive justice within a legal system situated in conditions of social inequality is a misguided project.
What this question is testing
Your task
Find what must be true based on what the passage or stimulus states.
Common trap
Answers that are plausible or likely but not actually guaranteed by the text.
Winning move
Keep only the choice the statements fully support — eliminate anything that requires an extra assumption.
Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.