In recent years, a growing belief that the way society decides what to treat as true is controlled through largely unrecognized discursive practices has led legal reformers to examine the complex interconnections between narrative and law. ββ ββββ βββββ ββββββββ βββββ βββββββββ βββ βββββ ββ βββββββββ βββββββ βββββ βββββββ βββββββ ββββββ βββββββββ βββββ βββββββ ββββββ βββ ββββββ ββββ ββββββββ ββββ βββββββ ββ ββββ βββ ββββββ ββββββ ββ ββββββ βββ
βββ ββββββββ ββββ ββββββ ββ βββ ββββββββββ ββ βββββββββββ ββββββββββ ββ βββββββββββ βββββ βββββββββ ββ βββββ βββββββββββββ βββ βββββββ ββββββ ββ ββ βββββββββββ ββββ βββ βββββ ββββ ββ ββββββ βββ βββ βββββββ ββ βββββ ββββββββββ βββββ βββ βββββββ ββ βββββ βββ βββ βββ ββββββ ββ βββ ββββββββ ββ βββ βββ βββ ββββββββ ββ ββββββ
βββββ ββββββββ ββββ ββ ββββββββ βββββββββ βββββββ βββββ βββ ββββ βββββββ ββββ ββββββ βββββββββββ βββ βββ ββββββ βββββ ββ ββββββ βββββββ βββ ββββββββββββ ββ βββββββββββ βββββ βββββββββββ βββ
Which one of the following ββββ ββββββ βββ ββββ ββββ ββ βββ ββββββββ
Some legal scholars ββββ ββββββ ββ βββββββ ββββββ ββββββββββββ ββββββββ ββββ βββββββββββ βββββ βββββββββ ββ βββββββββββ ββββ ββ βββ βββββ ββ βββββββββ βββββββ ββ βββββ βββββββββ
This misdescribes the solution. The legal scholars donβt propose to instruct people on the forms of discourse favored by legal insiders. Rather, they propose to include personal narratives as a legitimate part of legal discourse.
Some legal scholars ββββ βββββ ββ βββββββ βββ ββββββ ββββ ββββββ ββ βββ βββββββββββ ββββββββββ ββββ βββ ββββββββ ββββ βββββ βββββββ βββ ββββββββββ
This doesnβt capture the solution advocated by the legal scholars in P4. In addition, the harm the author describes in the passage results not from the adversarial system, but from the objectivist principles that are part of traditional legal discourse.
Some legal scholars ββββ ββββββββ βββββββββββ βββ ββββ ββββββ ββ βββ ββββββββββ ββ βββββββββββ ββββββββββ ββββββ βββββ βββββββββ ββ βββββββββ ββββ βββββββββ ββββ βββββββββββ βββββ ββ βββββ ββββββββββ
This best captures the main point, which is the fact that
Some legal scholars ββββ βββββββββ ββββ βββββ βββ ββββ ββββββββ ββββ βββββββββββ βββββ βββββββ βββββ ββ βββββββββ ββ βββ ββββββββββββ ββ β βββ βββββ ββββββββ ββββ ββββββ βββββββββ βββββββββββ βββββββββββ
This gets the legal scholarsβ solution wrong. They donβt propose a language that better reflects objectivist principles. They want to replace abstract discourse based on objectivist principles with narratives.
Some legal scholars ββββ ββββββ ββββ βββ βββββ ββββ ββββββββ ββ βββββββββββ ββββββ βββ ββ ββββββββ ββ βββββββββββ ββββ ββ ββ βββ ββββββββ ββ ββββββ β ββββββ βββββββ βββββββββββ ββ β ββββββββββ ββββββ
This gets the legal scholarsβ solution wrong. Their solution isnβt merely to recognize that we canβt get a single neutral description of an event. They propose replacing abstract discourse with personal narratives.
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnosticWant to know why the right answer is right?
7Sage membership unlocks explanations of every question. Every answer choice. On every official PrepTest. Start with a free account.
By signing up you agree to our
terms of service.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy
and
Terms of Service
apply.