RC Passage 2 Explanation
Paragraph Summaries
- Legal judgments try to arrive at objective truth. But there is no single objective truth.
- Historically, stories were judged true if and only if the speaker had legal training.
- Judges might listen to those without legal training if they tell better stories.
Analysis
This passage has complicated language, but simple ideas.
Basically, there’s no single, objective truth. Each person sees the same events differently.
This is a problem for the law, because the law assumes it can find objective truth and use it to make a judgment.
This search for objectivity has blinded the law to stories told by those without legal training.
Some scholars want to help those without better legal training tell better stories. Then judges might be persuaded to listen to them.
That’s really all the passage said. I just stripped it of jargon and complex language.
The author has a strong opinion. Objectivism is wrong. The first paragraph explains why. The second paragraph explains the consequences of the mistake.
The third paragraph describes some scholars’ efforts to fix the problem. The author agrees with the scholars, and supports their efforts.
Leave a Reply