Dear gurus,
Line 30 clearly states that "the best way to address concerns about judicial impartiality is to require judges to make their reasoning transparent", and to implement such a transparency is "requirement of a written explanation (by the judge)".
I guess maybe a little stretch, but "concerns" above in my impression is a "public" concern -- or could any other parties (say government agencies, prosecutions) be more concerned of judicial impartiality than the public does? Therefore 12 D which says written explanation can improve the public perception of the impartiality of the judiciary seems an appropriate answer to this question.
B seems also a little too strong -- "any faulty ... in principle can be detected." How can the passage support this viewpoint as to detecting "any faulty in principle"? Contrasting to this, 12 D using the form like "xxx can improve" seems more objective.
Thanks for any opinions offered by any folks.
LSAT Forum
2 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- ohthatpatrick
-
Thanks Received: 3808
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: April 01st, 2011
- This post thanked 1 time.
Re: Q12
Good questions.
The 'concerns' in line 29 do not have to be concerns offered by the general public. They might be purely policymakers, legal professionals, etc.
Also, the author is suggesting HER opinion of the best solution to a given problem. That doesn't mean the she'll think that the PUBLIC will agree with her.
I might say, "The BEST thing President Trump could do about climate change would be to mandate that we all drive electric cars".
Saying that doesn't commit me to believing that "the public perception of how severe a problem climate change is will improve if we all drive electric cars".
You're right that "any" in (B) is a red flag, however it's softened by the fact that the rest of the claim is can, in principle be detected.
Line 46-48 justifies that answer, and it even uses the word "ANY".
You mistakenly said that (D) takes the form of "public perception CAN be improved", but the biggest worry about (D) is how strongly it is worded. It says "public perception WILL improve".
(A) "almost completely eliminated" is way too strong
(C) "usually" is too strong
(E) doesn't have any good supporting text. If anything, it seems like the author is saying that having judges write out their legal justification will make it possible for a potentially biased judge to still take the case and render an unbiased judgment.
Hope this helps.
The 'concerns' in line 29 do not have to be concerns offered by the general public. They might be purely policymakers, legal professionals, etc.
Also, the author is suggesting HER opinion of the best solution to a given problem. That doesn't mean the she'll think that the PUBLIC will agree with her.
I might say, "The BEST thing President Trump could do about climate change would be to mandate that we all drive electric cars".
Saying that doesn't commit me to believing that "the public perception of how severe a problem climate change is will improve if we all drive electric cars".
You're right that "any" in (B) is a red flag, however it's softened by the fact that the rest of the claim is can, in principle be detected.
Line 46-48 justifies that answer, and it even uses the word "ANY".
You mistakenly said that (D) takes the form of "public perception CAN be improved", but the biggest worry about (D) is how strongly it is worded. It says "public perception WILL improve".
(A) "almost completely eliminated" is way too strong
(C) "usually" is too strong
(E) doesn't have any good supporting text. If anything, it seems like the author is saying that having judges write out their legal justification will make it possible for a potentially biased judge to still take the case and render an unbiased judgment.
Hope this helps.
2 posts Page 1 of 1