DISCUSSION: Dworkin has at least two goals. The first is given in lines 1-5. He provides an alternative to judges who think they only have two choices (natural law or legal positivism).
Second, Dworkin is providing cover for lawyers and judges. Lines 27-29 tell us that the way judges actually work is different from how legal positivism or natural law predicts they will work. The judges are wrong, according to those theories. So Dworkin provides a theory to explain their behavior: they are following the internal logic of the law.
- Name one legal interpretation by a judge that Dworkin discusses.
You can’t, there are none….This is simply nonsense strung together using terms from the passage. The LSAT does this frequently, to catch those who don’t know what they’re looking for.
- Dworkin doesn’t say that consensus has no place in the law. That’s a pretty strong statement. “Social consensus” might be important to the internal logic of the law.
- Same as B, this goes too far. Lines 41-42 even say that Dworkin sees a role for moral intuition in legal decision making.
- Lines 45-48 contradict this. Dworkin thinks the internal logic of the law is more important even than what the original drafters of a law thought.
- CORRECT. Lines 27-29 support this. Positivism contradicts the actual observed behavior of judges, so it isn’t a very good theory. A theory should explain results from the real world. Dworkin offers us such an explanation.
Want a free Reading Comp lesson?
Get a free sample of the Reading Comprehension Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving RC questions