Q17

[andrewgong01]

I noticed for these patterns in the dual passage an easy way is to make the question seem simpler is to just look for ideas that one of the passages never said but I find the phrasing of the question makes the question look a lot harder than it actaully is


A) I don't think any of the passage talked about public debate ( However, this has showed up in other questions as answer choices too so i might be missing something about it)

B) B never talked about moral considerations. I kept it; however, the moral part was confusing about people's need to tell the truth and maybe B may have something along those lines; hence defer

C) Unrealistic and Impractical seem to be points raised in B between lines 50 and 55 when the author says "probably not"

D) A does not talk about cost benefit analysis ; Passage B argues the opposite to do a cost benefit analysis but for society in general towards candor and not if judges should do a cost benefit analysis

E ) Very confusing language but Passage A does not talk about weightage differences for supporting and opposing a principle so it is unlikely that A depends on this principle

[ohthatpatrick]

Both topics took up the question of "should judges be sincere in their stated reasons"?

Each one answered the question slightly differently.

Psg A - there are a couple ways to argue that judges should be sincere
1. pragmatically (sincerity leads to better outcomes)
or, the author's seemingly preferred option
2. normatively (sincerity is a moral good, irrespective of outcomes)

Psg B - I'll allow for some exceptions, but we should have a presumption in favor of judges being sincere (to prevent abuses of power, allow for public debate, retain public faith in the judiciary)

(A) sounds more like psg B
(B) Yup! This sounds like psg A's final paragraph.
(C) psg B definitely allowed for exceptions, so it would potentially agree to this, but more importantly this doesn't seem to underlie A's argument at all
(D) "cases of great importance" was never an emphasis of either author
(E) psg A was the only talking about prudential reasons, but she never made the sort of distinction this answer is making