Reading Comprehension

PT21 · S4 · P2 · Q13 What is Law

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

What is “law”?

Topic

What is "law" and how has the understanding of law evolved through different schools of thought, including traditional, economic, critical, and literary perspectives?

Framework

Present Debate

Main Point

The passage surveys how longstanding debates about the nature of law have recently expanded to include new, interdisciplinary perspectives—most notably Law and Economics, Critical Legal Studies, and Law and Literature—with each providing distinct answers to what law is and how judges should interpret it. The "Most Valuable Sentences" encapsulating the main idea are found in the second paragraph:

P1: Traditional Debate—Natural Law vs. Legal Positivism

The passage starts by introducing classic jurisprudential questions about the essence of law and how judges reach their decisions, noting that debates have long centered around natural law (law as moral order) versus legal positivism (law as authority’s commands).

P2: New Answers—Law and Economics & Critical Legal Studies

Since the 1970s, new interdisciplinary approaches have emerged. Law and Economics views law as rules maximizing societal wealth and market efficiency. Critical Legal Studies, more controversially, sees law as a tool for elites to maintain social domination, arguing it represents elite power rather than legitimate sovereign power.

P3: Law and Literature Movement

Another response came from James Boyd White, who advanced the idea that law, especially judicial opinions, should be understood as literary activities—artistic performances that try to advance particular ethical or political values.

13.

Which one of the following can be inferred from the passage about the academic study of jurisprudence before the 1970s?

  1. It was concerned primarily with

    Outside Support Window

    Outside Support Window: elites' privileges Too Strong: primarily The concept of 'elites' is associated with CLS, which is one of the new schools of thought that has arisen since the 1970s. We might say, "well wait --- legal positivists were big prior to the 1970s and they saw law as embodying the commands of a society's ruling authority." The ruling authority is probably meant to mean more like the sovereign government, not the upper crust of rich people. And legal positivists aren't talking about maintaining the "privileges" of the ruling authority. And legal positivism can't be said to be the primary concern of pre-1970 thinking because natural law was also dominant and had nothing to do with elite privilege.

    4% picked this

  2. It rejected theories that interpreted

    Semi-Contradicted

    One of the big theories pre-1970 was legal positivism, which interpreted law as "embodying the commands of a society's ruling authority". That sounds like law was an expression of that group's power. Thus, pre-1970 thinking wasn't rejecting that sort of theory. One of the two dominant theories in pre-1970 thinking seems to be one of that sort of theory.

    3% picked this

  3. It seldom focused on how

    Contradicted

    We know from the first three sentences of the passage that one of the big questions that still lingered pre 1970s was "by what processes do judges arrive at opinions"? Both natural law and legal positivism were attempts to answer that question.

    9% picked this

  4. It was concerned primarily with

    Too Strong: primarily economic

    Natural law, one of the two dominant schools of thought pre-1970, saw law as intertwined with a moral order. But it didn't have anything to do with economics and we wouldn't say that "what natural law was concerned with = what pre-1970 academic study was primarily concerned with". The other dominant theory, legal positivism, doesn't seem to have anything to do with morality or economics. The inclusion of "economic" matters is one of the new schools of thought (Law and Economics) that has emerged since 1970.

    11% picked this

  5. Correct

    It was not concerned with

    Why this is right

    This pulls from our 3rd supporting nugget: - they were grappling with the age-old questions - natural law and legal positivism were the dominant schools of thought - there was less influence from academic disciplines that are unconnected with law We're told that since the early 1970s, there have been new answers to the age old questions because of the increasing influence of academic disciplines and intellectual traditions previously unconnected with the study of law. CLS drew on arguments developed in anthropology, sociology, and history. We can use our common sense to put these pieces of text together and think that "anthropology and sociology" are examples of academic disciplines that increasingly influenced legal thinking since the early 1970s, but were previously unconnected with the study of law.

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

    73% 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