LSAT 153 | Section 4 | Reading Comprehension: Q16

RC Question 16 Explanation

DISCUSSION: The biggest difference between the two authors is that author A thinks judges ought to be honest for moral reasons, even if it leads to bad outcomes. They make this clear in paragraph 3: lines 25-26 say that we don’t tell the truth only when it produces good outcomes.

Whereas in passage B the author applies a cost benefit analysis to judicial honesty, in line 55 near the end of paragraph 3. They conclude there is only a presumption in favour of honesty. (This implies that the author could have been persuaded that lying is the best policy, if the cost benefit analysis suggested that was the case.)

This distinction plays a role in several questions on this passage. Principled morality and cost-benefit efficiency can produce the same judgement but the processes are very different.

___________

1. I don’t believe either author makes such a fine distinction. Neither author discusses a judge believing only some of their reasons.
    
   But, if we reason from first principles: not believing some of what you say is surely lying. And both authors agree that judges should not lie. So, both authors would have the same opinion about this question.
2. Author B believes this to be true. Author A doesn’t mention it, but they probably would agree: they think judges should be honest. People who believe in honesty tend to believe in debate. In any case, author A doesn’t say anything to disagree with this answer.
3. CORRECT. See the analysis above. The author of passage A thinks this is true: paragraph 3 says we have a moral duty to be honest even in cases where outcomes aren’t good. Whereas at the end of passage B, author B says that judicial honesty should have a cost benefit analysis.
    
   If you cost benefit analyze something, that means you are not applying morality. In other words, you could never persuade the author of passage A that a judge should lie, but you might persuade the author of passage B that it would make sense for judges to lie if the benefits are great enough.
    
   (Cost benefit analysis sounds great, but there are some areas of life where we do not want people to apply it. For example, we would all prefer that people follow a moral rule which says “do not murder, ever!”. We don’t want people suddenly murdering people the instant they think it’s to their benefit.
4. Neither author discusses what anyone other than judges should do. This “nonlegal settings” is totally off base.
5. Only author B even mentions cost-benefit analysis, and they don’t discuss how easy it is to do one.