LSAT 153 | Section 4 | Reading Comprehension: Q20

RC Question 20 Explanation

DISCUSSION: This is similar to questions 16 and 17. The author of passage A thinks judicial candor is a moral obligation that mustn’t be set aside (paragraph 3). Whereas the author of passage B says we should use a cost benefit analysis to decide whether judges should lie (paragraph 3, line 55). A cost benefit analysis implies that in some situations you might conclude that lying is worthwhile, if the benefits are high enough.

___________

1. Both authors mention institutional legitimacy, so they probably agree on this. Passage A: end of paragraph 2, lines 19-20. Passage B: middle of paragraph 3, line 56. (Read in combination with end of paragraph 2, lines 49-50)
2. Passage B says this (start of paragraph 2, discussing criticism of judges’ judgements). Author A doesn’t mention this, so we have no indication they would disagree. For point at issue questions, you have to find a spot where one author clearly says yes, the other clearly says no.
    
   If anything, author A agrees, as in their paragraph 2 they mention transparency of judicial decisions being a good thing. To debate a decision you need transparency, according to paragraph 2 in passage B.
3. Only passage A mentions this (first paragraph). However, it’s common sense that judges must balance functions: most professionals have to. We have no indication that author B would disagree with this idea.
4. The “nonlegal” is a dead giveaway that this answer is irrelevant. Both passages are only about what judges should do.
    
   Also, interpreted literally, this answer is extremely easy to agree with. It means: in some situations, we should consider the future effects of our actions to figure out what to do. Who would disagree with that?! For an answer to be right, one author has to disagree.
5. CORRECT. Author B agrees with this. At the end of paragraph 3 they say you should apply a cost benefit analysis to judicial candor. Cost-benefit means that if the costs are too high, you shouldn’t be honest.
    
   Author A disagrees. In their final paragraph they say we should be honest even when it doesn’t lead to good outcomes. So judicial honesty is a moral obligations. Moral obligations aren’t something you set aside in certain circumstances.