DISCUSSION: Personal stories are subjective, and more emotional than traditional legal stories. They depend on an individual’s beliefs and experiences.
___________
- Nonsense. The scholars think objectivism is wrong. We should get rid of it and replace it with personal stories (lines 44-45).
- Traditional legal training deemphasizes experience (lines 41-43). Personal narrative would allow people to tell their stories despite differences in background and training.
- Adversarial discourse is never mentioned. This answer choice is drawing on your outside assumption that the law is an adversarial process.
Also, line 52-54 say that personal stories will shatter the tranquility of the legal profession.
- The scholars don’t think there is a single accurate set of facts. That’s an objectivist belief.
- CORRECT. Lines 41-45 say that objectivist legal discourse didn’t allow emotion or experience. Presumably, personal stories will allow these.
You are allowed to use common sense on the LSAT, if it’s something that everyone would agree on. Everyone agrees that personal stories involve a person’s expectations, values and beliefs.
Want a free Reading Comp lesson?
Get a free sample of the Reading Comprehension Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving RC questions
MemberSK says
I think the credited response to this question is actually (B), instead of (E), according to the LSAC LawHub answer guide. As such, I just wished to let you know accordingly. Thank you!
FounderGraeme Blake says
Oops, thank you. I have added this to the list for fixes.
Note: This is an old comment but I wanted to address the point.