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

JayRay2016JayRay2016 Alum Member
edited January 2016 in October 2015 LSAT 48 karma
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

Comments

  • nye8870nye8870 Alum ⭐
    1749 karma
    Is this in regards to a specific question# or in general?
  • JayRay2016JayRay2016 Alum Member
    48 karma
    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.janson35c.janson35 Free Trial Inactive Sage Inactive ⭐
    2398 karma
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.