PT30.S3.P3: Meyerson and CLS, Paragraphs 3 and 4

Ashley2018-1

Hi, could someone who understands this passage thoroughly translate paragraphs 3 and 4 with me? JY's explanation video for this passage zoomed through the last paragraph and I was still left pretty confused.

I do understand that overall, this passage is detailing Meyerson's critique of CLS and Paragraph 3 gets at one of her main issues with a key tenet of CLS, namely that just because we have two equally compelling solutions to a legal question, it must therefore mean that any choice between the two must be random or irrational and I get that she clearly doesn't agree but what I don't understand is why M would choose to bring in an "utterly unreasonable answer" to help decide between the two solutions. Like how would that help?

And for the last paragraph, is that first sentence just a really long-winded, abstract way of saying that the legal process is not necessarily moral? I also am confused about the whole who endorses the rules of the game in the final three sentences. What is the actual point of all this?

And I get it, during timed conditions I cannot hope to understand every detail but I'm reviewing right now and would like to try.

Admin Note: https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-30-section-3-passage-3-passage/