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.
Want a free Reading Comp lesson?
Get a free sample of the Reading Comprehension Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving RC questions