RC Question 14 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: The author would be most likely to consider…
DISCUSSION: The current approach depends on the appearance of bias. Judges can step down if they want, and in some areas people can request judges step down. (See paragraph 1)
However, this will not catch all cases of bias. See lines 22-24.
Further, since the rules focus on the appearance of bias, it’s possible that some unbiased judges will be asked to step down.
___________
- The author never tells us what the public believes. They may think that eliminating the appearance of bias is enough.
- The author never tells us what judges believe.
- The first part isn’t supported. Current rules focus on the appearance of bias. So it’s possible that many unbiased judges are removed because of a possible appearance of bias.
- The first part isn’t supported. Lines 22-24 say that the current system may not catch many cases of actual bias.
- CORRECT. See the analysis above. There is reason to believe that some unbiased judges will be removed, and some biased judges will be allowed to remain.
This is because in some cases a judge may actually be unbiased and yet appear biased. And in other cases the judge may appear unbiased but actually be biased.
I can understand the reasoning behind E being the correct answer, but I am getting hung up on the fact that, to my reading, the passage never alludes to any unbiased judges being removed unnecessarily. The author does find fault with the undefined “appearance of impropriety,” but does not go so far as to say that this system has or could result in a judge being removed for a perceived bias that would not actually have affected their judgement. Isn’t answer E therefore requiring the test-taker to make a significant unsupported assumption? That was what drove me to choose A, despite it being an imperfect answer. The passage does, after all, refer to public perception of judicial bias far more directly than to unbiased judges being removed unnecessarily. What am I missing?
You’re right that you’re not supposed to make unsupported assumptions, but you are required to make supported inferences. Answers to questions like this will not be written explicitly, because they’re asking what the author would be most likely to do, with the answer choices typically adding some new level of information (which should be supported through reasonable inferences).
At the end of paragraph 2, the author states that focusing on appearances might cause us to overlook biased judges. Paragraphs 1 and 2 also talk a lot about how the rules are based on the appearance of impropriety. It is, thus, reasonable to infer that if we’re focused on appearance, and the rules provide only vague guidance, appearance might misguide us to (1) overlook judges who are actually biased because they don’t appear to be; and (2) remove judges who aren’t actually biased because they DO appear to be. It goes both ways – it doesn’t logically make sense to have one but not the other when the rules are vague.
For A, there’s actually no mention of the public’s opinion on these legal standards. We only know the author’s opinion, and how the system is based on the “appearance of bias”.
Hope that helps! Let me know if you have further questions.
Can you expand on how to eliminate (A)? This is tricky to me because “assure” has two common definitions: 1) tell someone something positively or confidently to dispel any doubts they may have. 2) make (something) certain to happen.
I agree that (A) can be easily dismissed under the first definition, as the author never alludes to “assurances to the general public” or anything adjacent. However, under the second definition, (A) strikes me as very well-supported, particularly by the final sentence of P2: “Focusing on appearances may cause sources of actual bias that are not apparent to outside observers, or even to judges themselves, to be overlooked.” Given this statement, I must conclude that it is quite likely that the author would agree with (A), again assuming the second definition of “assure.”
I grant that the second claim in (E) is well-supported by the same sentence I cited above. The first claim, on the other hand, is a little more dicey; I certainly agree that this seems to be an unstated assumption of P2, but given the much more explicit support for (A), I fail to understand how the credited response meets the stringent standards for correctness typically seen on the LSAT.
Lastly, I will concede that the language of (E) is far more supportable than the much stronger claim made in (A), and perhaps this is what it ultimately boils down to.
I’ve rambled on too long already…I suppose my biggest concern is around the ambiguity of how to interpret “assure” here, given the two definitions. Any advice on this issue in particular? Thanks in advance.
Good question. So, the second definition is [with object]. Here, the object of assure is “the public”. So the second definition doesn’t make sense. Assure the public = make the public happen?
Definition one is the only definition that makes sense here. LSAT vocab can definitely be tricky: it’s good to know secondary definitions, but you also have to be certain they apply. Generally speaking only ONE of a word’s definitions will be the correct interpretation in a given sentence, and the other definitions are incorrect reads.
Reassure is a synonym of the first definition and ensure is a synonym of the second. If you read the sentence with those words you’ll see only the first one works.
Note: This is an old comment but I wanted to clarify the point.