LSAT 35, Reading Comprehension, Q22, LSATHacks

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. 

LawHub Order

LawHub Order

---