DISCUSSION: The second paragraph is a neutral presentation of the ideas of legal positivism. There’s no judgment given. That comes in the third paragraph, when we’re told why Dworkin disagrees with legal positivism.
___________
- We’re never told whether anybody likes legal positivism. All we know is that Dworkin doesn’t like it.
- An evaluation would involve calling the theory good, bad, or making some sort of value judgment. But the second paragraph is just some information about positivism, presented neutrally.
- We’re never told how judges achieve consensus. It’s all a little fuzzy.
- CORRECT. One clue is the use of the word “holds” in line 13. To hold something is to argue something. Paragraph 2 just presents legal positivism’s arguments.
- There’s nothing in paragraph 2 that says positivism is good or bad.

So for this question, while E was incorrect, if the paragraph had argued in favor of the theory of legal positivism than it would also have technically evaluated the theory of legal positivism as well right?
Good question! If the paragraph had argued in favor of positivism, then E might indeed have been the best answer. That wouldn’t necessarily make B right as well, though.
Evaluation is synonymous with assessment, and that generally implies engaging with something more critically than just arguing for. It might involve things like considering strengths, weaknesses, consequences or alternatives. If the paragraph simply argued for legal positivism stating it’s a good or preferable theory without any analysis, that would support E but not B. So it’d entirely depend on the level of engagement.
It’s like saying “chocolate is the best ice cream flavor”. If you leave it there, that’s an argument. It doesn’t really count as an evaluation unless you also talk about why it’s better than vanilla or consider potential downsides.
So bottom line is that it’s always going to be context-dependent, and whether argued for or evaluate is more correct will depend on the level of analysis that is present. Hope that helps!