Reading Comprehension

PT21 · S4 · P2 · Q14 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

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.

14.

Proponents of the Law and Literature movement would most likely agree with which one of the following statements concerning the relationship between the law and judges’ written opinions?

  1. The once-stable relationship between law

    Out of Scope: radical developments undermining

    There isn't anything in the 3rd or 4th paragraph about new and radical developments or about undermining a once-stable relationship. This language seems to come out of nowhere.

    1% picked this

  2. Only the most politically conservative

    Too Strong: only the most

    We don't have anything in the 3rd or 4th paragraph that lines up with this extreme claim that "the only judges who still use natural law or legal positivism are the most politically conservative".

    0% picked this

  3. The occurrence of different legal

    Too Strong: requires diverse approaches

    There's nothing in the 3rd or 4th that matches up with "requiring diverse theoretical approaches". The Law and Literature movement seems to think that judges will be employing a similar approach, despite their being a diverse set of legal challenges to adjudicate. In each case, they think that a judge is acting as a translator, re-fashioning the old text of the law with the conditions / constraints / worldview in which the new legal problem has arisen.

    27% picked this

  4. Correct

    Different judges will not necessarily

    Why this is right

    This is the most lovable answer on a quick skim, since it has super soft, easy to support wording. You either believe what (D) is saying, or you believe that "Every judge will necessarily write the same sort of opinion when confronted with the same legal situation". That latter idea is absurdly strong. No one believes that all judges will write the same opinion for a given legal situation. Human nature is way too variable for that to be plausible. So the fact that this answer is clearly true, via our common sense, makes it pretty easy to sign off on. Our best supporting sentence is probably the end of the 3rd paragraph, which says that "each judicial opinion (like any kind of artistic performance) attempts in its own way to promote a particular political or ethical value." Thus, since they believe that judges are promoting certain political or ethical values in their own way, they would accept that there will be at least some variability in terms of how judges write opinions.

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

    69% picked this

  5. Judges who subscribe to divergent

    Too Strong

    Too Strong: necessarily Out of Scope: divergent theories This answer is guaranteeing that in 100% of cases where judges subscribe to divergent theories of jurisprudence, they will render divergent opinions. Never ever ever can they overlap. We don't have anything in the final two paragraphs to justify so strong a claim. In fact the final two paragraphs don't even touch on the idea of what effect, if any, there is when judges subscribe to different theories of jurisprudence.

    3% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

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