Q20

[andrewgong01]

Like Q16 and my post in the passage discussion, I am not seeing the disagreement :

A) Seems unlikely to be true and both passages did hint at the fact that trust in courts could decrease
B) Public debate seems out of scope as in at least one of the passages did not mention it
C) [unknown support]?
D) I chose this one but I guess in hindsight prudential considerations was only discussed in A and, more importantly, A only said there was a problem with using prudential considerations as an argument but never really said if it disagreed with it so the stance of A is uncertain, which makes this choice untenable?
E) I know that B would agree with this, but A is unclear; however, this was the credited response?

[ohthatpatrick]

I agree, it's an annoying answer / interpretation.

The question both passages were addressing was, "Should judges be candid in their reasoning?"

Psg A - Yes ... and it would be better to justify that using moral rather than practical/prudential reasons.

Psg B - Yes, usually ... but we don't have to be totally inflexible about it

I think it's possible to read psg A without thinking the author ever staked ANY claim about whether SHE thinks judges should be candid.

One could read psg A as simply a discussion of which line of arguing would be more successful.

The place where we really get the author's implicit endorsement of defending the principle of judicial sincerity is lines 21-24.

The author is saying that a "prudential argument" is problematic because it fails to acknowledge that judges should not lie or deliberately mislead in their opinions.

If the author is saying that something is bad because it fails to acknowledge X,
then that author certainly must believe that X is in fact true.

So since Psg A says "judges should not lie or mislead in their opinions", while psg B says "we should have a strong presumption in favor of judicial candor", we can pick (E) and say that there is some difference between those two positions.

[AmyH231]

I agree and ultimately got E, but I have a question about A--more of a "how nit-picky is too nit-picky"?

Passage B we know that this is true from line 50

Passage A--only says that it "strengthens the institutional legitimacy," not that this legitimacy is dependent on it.

I had a really tough time ruling this option out--is there something I'm missing?

[ThaoN810]

Passage A appeals to deontological constraints. Philosophy majors (who make up a substantial proportion of LSAT takers!) would probably recognizes Kantian ethics there, and understand that the requirement is categorical!

[yongl458]

I agree and ultimately got E, but I have a question about A--more of a "how nit-picky is too nit-picky"?

Passage B we know that this is true from line 50

Passage A--only says that it "strengthens the institutional legitimacy," not that this legitimacy is dependent on it.

I had a really tough time ruling this option out--is there something I'm missing?

I gusse passage B dose not explicitly says "depend on", rathan than the society get cost from the lack of trust.