PT35.S2.P4 - ronald dworkin argues that judges are

JayRay2016

http://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-35-section-2-passage-4-passage/

I am a long-time lurker that is gearing up for the October exam.
I really love 7Sage and the Sage community discussion threads. I follow all the threads related to preparation of the exam.

I have a question regarding RC section of PT 35, section 2 passage 4 - Dworkin and Legal Positivism.
How to approach this? How did you go about answering it? Any and all suggestions would be appreciated!!

I went (-2), but found myself struggling with it more than I think I should have. I just wasn't quick or crisp in this passage.

Thanks!
JGirl

nye8870

Is this in regards to a specific question# or in general?

JayRay2016

Following up on RC: PT 35, Section 2
My specific questions include:

Question #25:
I was drawn to both (A) and (E), as I see both have support within the passage.
What in your mind is the clincher for (E) to be the correct answer?

Question #24:
I was overall hazy on choosing the correct answer.
What leads you to the correct answer?

c.janson35

For number 24: you can find the answer in lines 30-31 as it specifically says what Dworkin's theory seeks to do.

For number 25: Dworkin believes that the legal positivists' belief that morality and law are wholly separate is problematic, because there are times when judges can and should rely on their moral intuition, he says (39-44). Thus, he would agree with answer E.