RC Question 18 Explanation
DISCUSSION: This is a surprisingly tricky answer. However, it can be easy if you fully understood the passage. So if you missed this, take it as a strong signal that you didn’t fully understand the passage.
See my section in the analysis about the cynics. Both authors explicitly or implicitly set up cynics as their opponents. The cynics argue that it can sometimes be good for judges to lie.
You should always note a point of view (“the cynics”), because there are things in each passage that support the cynics point of view. If you noticed that, then this question is easy: both authors imply that sometimes it is beneficial for judges to lie.
e.g. in the middle of paragraph 3 of passage A (lines 24-26), the author strongly implies that we shouldn’t lie even when telling the truth produces bad outcomes. Likewise, the author suggests judges should have a similar moral duty not to lie. This implies that if morality is needed as a justification, then there are times when judicial honesty leads to bad outcomes. Despite that, we should uphold our moral duty of honesty.
As for the author of passage B, they repeatedly state that they’re not sure they’re correct. They conclude by saying in paragraph 3 (line 55) that we should do a cost benefit analysis of judicial honesty. This shows that honesty has a cost. And the author’s closing uncertainty shows they’re not sure the benefit always outweighs the cost.
So, both authors imply that in some situations, lying produces good outcomes. It’s just that author A thinks lying is a moral wrong (and thus should never be done), and that author B also thinks lying has costs which likely outweigh the benefits.
If you missed these aspects of the authors’ arguments, have a good look over the passage again, and see the sections in each passage which acknowledge the cynics’ point. Each author thinks the cynics are wrong, but they don’t think the cynics are nonsensical.
When considering the answers, remember that candor just means honesty. So this question is asking “Each author says that a lack of judicial honesty….”.
Or in even simpler terms “What do the authors think of lying judges?”. Both authors think they are bad, but worth debating as there are some potential upsides to lying.
___________
- Only passage B mentions an unshakeable rule of judicial behaviour (start of paragraph 3). And they conclude that….they’re unsure (“probably not”). Thus, they don’t know for sure if lack of candor violates an unshakeable rule. So, this answer is unjustified.
- Only author A mentions that candor gives guidance to litigants. And they only say candor makes for “better” guidance. But guidance might still be sufficient even without candor. Something can be helpful but not necessary.
- This was the cynics’ position in paragraph 1. Neither of the authors themselves argues for it. Both authors argued instead that judges should be honest.
- CORRECT. See the analysis above. Author A can only fully justify honesty on moral grounds: they suggest sometimes honesty leads to bad outcomes. And author B is unsure of their argument and calls for a cost-benefit analysis. This implies they both think lying can sometimes have good practical outcomes. If you’re looking at the “cost-benefit” of lying then there logically are likely both costs and benefits.
- Only the author of passage B mentioned that people will likely detect lying (end of para 2). Author A makes no claims in this direction.
You could argue that the author of passage A may imply lying will be detected by mentioning some practical benefits of honesty, such as institutional legitimacy. But, that argument only requires some lying to be discovered.
This answer is making a much stronger claim. The question/answer says “a lack of judicial candour….is likely to be found out”. In this context this is referring to any instance of judicial lying, which means the question + answer can more simply be phrased as a belief that “most instances of judicial lying will be discovered over time if they continued”.
You only require some dishonesty to be found out for legitimacy to be hurt. “Most” is a much stronger claim, and not one we can support from passage A.
I don’t see how Author A is implying the truth could lead to bad outcomes. All he’s saying is that the intention you have when telling the truth should rather be for morals’ sake than for reasons of outcome.
It would be different if he said “regardless of the outcome, be truthful.” This would imply there are other outcomes than good.
But he is instead saying “be truthful not because of the outcome, but because of morals.” Which is simply a reframing of intention rather than an implication of other outcomes.
I see your point, but I think the final paragraph does more than just reframe the intention behind truthfulness. When the author says “merely when they produce good outcomes” and “independent constraint on our actions”, this implicitly acknowledges the possibility that truth-telling could lead to unfavorable outcomes.
This would be similar to someone saying “You shouldn’t exercise merely because it helps you lose weight”. In your interpretation, one would have to assume that this simply means to not do it just for this one outcome. But if you’re saying to do something not merely for one outcome, that necessarily means there are other possible outcomes.
There is no world in which the author could argue that “duties of truth telling are not justified merely when they produce good outcomes” and good outcomes be the only type of outcome. What would the purpose and role of saying merely when they produce good outcomes be then? A more demonstrative example of what you’re saying would be something like “merely BECAUSE they produce good outcomes”. But since the author is saying WHEN they produce good outcomes, there must necessarily be a time when they do not.
Hopefully that clarifies things. Let me know if you have any further questions!
Thank you! The distinction of WHEN and BECAUSE definitely helped me understand the difference in possible meaning. If it were “because” then intention would probably be the meaning, but since it is “when” it could conceivably imply that it is not always the outcome.