Ronald Dworkin argues that judges are in danger of uncritically embracing an erroneous theory known as legal positivism because they think the only alternative is a theory that they (and Dworkin) see as clearly unacceptableβnatural law. βββ
βββββ βββββββββββ βββ ββββ βββββββ ββ βββ βββ βββββββββ βββββ ββββ βββ βββ ββββββββ βββ ββββββ βββββββββ βββ βββββββ ββ βββ βββ βββββ ββ ββββββ ββββββββββ ββ βββ ββββ βββ ββ ββββ βββ βββββββ ββ β βββββ βββββββββ ββββ ββ ββββ βββββ βββββββββββ ββββββ ββββββββββββ βββββ βββββββ ββ ββββββββββ ββββ ββ ββ ββββββ ββββ ββββ βββ ββββββββββ ββββββββββ βββ βββ ββ ββ ββ ββ ββββββββ ββ βββββββββββ β ββββββββββ βββ ββ ββββββββ ββββ ββ βββββββ ββββββ ββ βββ ββββ ββββ ββββββββββββ βββββ βββ βββββββ ββ β ββββ ββ βββββββ ββ βββββββββββ βββ ββββββ ββββββββ βββ βββ βββ βββ ββ ββββββββ ββββ ββ βββββ ββ βββββ βββββ βββββ ββ ββ ββββββββββ βββββ ββ ββ βββββ ββββ ββ βββ βββββββ βββ βββββββ ββββββββββββ ββββ ββ βββββββ ββ ββββββββββ ββββ ββββββββββ ββ βββ βββββββ ββββββββ
βββββββββ ββ ββββββββ ββββ βββββββ ββ ββββββββββββ ββββ βββ ββββββ ββββββββ ββ ββββββ βββ ββββββββ βββ βββ ββ ββ βββββ ββ β ββββ ββ βββ ββββββ ββββ ββ βββββ βββββ βββββ ββ ββ ββββββββββ βββ ββββββ ββ ββββββββ βββββ ββ ββββββββ ββββ ββββββββ βββββββ βββββββ ββββ ββββ βββββββ βββββββββ ββββ ββ βββ βββββ ββ βββββββ βββ βββββββ βββ
βββ ββββββββββββ ββββββββ ββ βββββββ ββββββ ββββ ββ ββββββββ ββββ βββ βββββββ ββ βββ βββ βββ ββββ βββββββ ββ ββββ ββββββ βββββ ββ ββββββ βββββββ βββββ ββββββ ββ βββ ββββββββ βββββββ ββ βββ βββ ββ β ββββββββ ββ βββ βββββββββββββ ββββββ ββββ ββ ββββββββ ββ βββββββ βββββ ββββ βββ βββ βββ ββ ββββββββ βββββ ββ βββ βββ ββββ ββββββββββ βββββββββββββββ ββ ββββ ββ βββ βββββββββββ ββ βββββββββ ββββ βββ βββββββββββββββ βββ ββββ ββ βββ ββββββββββββββ βββ ββ βββ ββββββββ ββββββββ
What is the main purpose ββ βββ ββββββ ββββββββββ
to explain why βββββ ββββββββββ ββ ββ βββββββ
The first sentence of P2 tells us that legal positivism is more popular than natural law theory. But the paragraph never explains why legal positivism is more popular.
to evaluate the ββββββ ββ βββββ ββββββββββ
P2 simply presents a neutral description of legal positivism; it doesnβt evaluate the theory. P3 gives us Dworkinβs perspective of legal positivism.
to discuss how ββββββββ βββββββββ ββ ββββββββββ
Legal positivism says that disagreements about the law should be settled by figuring out the consensus about what the law means. But P2 doesnβt discuss how a consensus is determined.
to identify the βββββ ββββββ ββ βββββ ββββββββββ
The purpose of P2 is simply to identify the basic beliefs of legal positivism: the lawβs meaning comes from social conventions, and disagreements should be settled by figuring out the consensus about what the law means.
to argue in βββββ ββ βββ ββββββ ββ βββββ ββββββββββ
P2 doesnβt argue for or against legal positivism; it simply presents a neutral description of the theory. P3 gives us Dworkinβs perspective of legal positivism. He thinks it isnβt consistent with the actual practice of judges and lawyers.
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.