LSATHacks
  • Explanations
  • Tutoring
  • Courses
  • Login
  • Cart
  • Explanations
  • Tutoring
  • Courses
  • Login
  • Cart
LSAT Explanations › Preptest 111 › Reading Comprehension › Question 22

LSAT 111 | Section 2 | Reading Comprehension: Q22

LSAT Preptest 111 explanations

RC Question 22 Explanation

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.

___________

  1. We’re never told whether anybody likes legal positivism. All we know is that Dworkin doesn’t like it.
  2. 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. 
  3. We’re never told how judges achieve consensus. It’s all a little fuzzy.
  4. 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. 
  5. There’s nothing in paragraph 2 that says positivism is good or bad. 
Previous Question
↑ Return to PT 111
Next Question
Quick Jump PT Section Que

Hi, I'm Graeme Blake

I scored a 177 on the LSAT. I founded LSATHacks and created the LSAT Mastery Seminars to help students succeed.

I’ve personally written explanations for 5,000+ LSAT questions. If you find these explanations helpful, you'll definitely like our courses.

Join my email list for LSAT study tips and resources.

Comments

  1. Erin says

    April 6, 2025 at 3:36 pm

    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?

    Reply
    • Aaminah_LSATHacks says Tutor

      April 9, 2025 at 5:13 pm

      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!

      Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Free LSAT Email Course

My best LSAT tips, straight to your inbox

Increase Your Score

LSATHacks Courses Aiming For The 170S? See exactly how a top scorer thinks INCREASE YOUR SCORE
“The seminars teach you how to think like a high-scorer so that you can choose the correct answer quickly.” — Jay
“Not only did my score improve but I was able to approach LR with utter confidence” — Kacie L.

Resources

  • Articles
  • Blog
  • Free Email Course
  • LSAT Preptest Converter
  • Experimental Section Checker
  • LSAT Prep Books

About LSATHacks

  • About/Contact
  • Courses
  • Free Trial

Community

  • Discord
  • Social Media
  • Webinars
Disclaimer: Use of these explanations requires official LSAT preptests. LSAT is a registered trademark of LSAC.
LSAC does not review or endorse specific test preparation materials or services and has not reviewed this site.

© Copyright 2026 LSATHacks. All Rights Reserved. | Privacy | Terms