PT156.S3.P1.Q1

SECTION 1 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7

PASSAGE 2

Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14

PASSAGE 3

Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21

PASSAGE 4

Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

SECTION 2 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25

SECTION 3 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5

PASSAGE 2

Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13

PASSAGE 3

Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21

PASSAGE 4

Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

SECTION 4 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

(A) tells us that most people know that formalism (procedural justice) is imperfect, and that they don’t see any real way to fix those imperfections. This doesn’t tell us anything remotely positive about formalism, so it doesn’t undermine the author’s conclusion that we should abandon formalism. If (A) does anything, it would strengthen the author’s conclusion about formalism.

(C) appears to suggest that a formalist legal system might become less effective as the rules in that system become dated and less relevant. We don’t need to think too deeply about whether a formalist legal system is a “type of collective action that is formalized into a set of rules” or about whether the rules in a formalist legal system actually would become dated or less relevant. This answer conveys something negative about a system of rules, which isn’t what we’re looking for. We want something positive about formalism.

The author’s conclusion about formalism in the last paragraph is a hypothetical conditioned on a society’s lack of equality: if we can’t have the equality necessary to reconcile formalism and substantive justice, then we should abandon formalism. If it turns out that there are some societies that do have high equality, and that the level of equality in that society can reconcile formalism and substantive justice, the author’s conclusion simply doesn’t apply to those societies. What happens in those societies wouldn’t impact what the author believes should happen in societies without high equality.

A separate reason to eliminate (D) is that it doesn’t tell us anything about the achievement of substantive justice in the societies that use formalism. Sure, these societies use formalism, but are they failing to deliver substantive justice? Contrast (D) with the correct answer, (B) – (B) tells us about the achievement of substantive justice in formalist systems.

(E) tells us something negative about formalism. So, if it does anything, it would strengthen the author’s conclusion about abandoning formalism.