LSAT 127 – Section 2 – Question 22

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 127 - Section 2 - Question 22

December 2003

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Target time: 1:21

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question QuickView	Type	Tags	Answer Choices	Curve This gives you an idea of how this question is “curved”— in other words, what level of scorer is likely to get this question right. It shows a model of scaled LSAT score vs probability of getting the question correct. It is based on student test results for each question. The gray bar extends from the score for a 25% chance, to the score for a 75% chance of getting the question correct. The black line in the middle is the score for a 50% chance of getting the question correct. The percentage at the right is the expected chance of someone with the same score as you on that PrepTest getting that question correct	Question Difficulty	Psg/Game/S Difficulty	Explanation

Question QuickView	Type	Tags	Answer Choices	Curve This gives you an idea of how this question is “curved”— in other words, what level of scorer is likely to get this question right. It shows a model of scaled LSAT score vs probability of getting the question correct. It is based on student test results for each question. The gray bar extends from the score for a 25% chance, to the score for a 75% chance of getting the question correct. The black line in the middle is the score for a 50% chance of getting the question correct. The percentage at the right is the expected chance of someone with the same score as you on that PrepTest getting that question correct	Question Difficulty	Psg/Game/S Difficulty	Explanation
PT127 S2 Q22	+LR	Resolve reconcile or explain +RRE Link Assumption +LinkA	A 7% 160 B 5% 156 C 74% 166 D 3% 154 E 10% 159	147 155 163	+Harder	146.61 +SubsectionMedium

Showing 1 to 1 of 1 entries

First Previous1Next Last

J.Y.’s explanation

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

The writing styles in works of high literary quality are not well suited to the avoidance of misinterpretation. For this reason, the writing in judicial decisions, which are primarily intended as determinations of law, is rarely of high literary quality. However, it is not uncommon to find writing of high literary quality in dissenting opinions, which are sometimes included in written decisions in cases heard by a panel of judges.

"Surprising" Phenomenon

Judicial decisions are rarely of high literary quality, yet dissenting opinions occasionally are of high literary quality.

Objective

The right answer will be a hypothesis that explains why dissenting opinions are written in a different way than are judicial decisions. High literary quality can lead to misinterpretations, so it makes sense why judicial decisions aren’t written that way. We need to know why dissenters sometimes write opinions of high literary quality despite the chance their words are misinterpreted.

It is not uncommon for more than one judge to have an influence on the way a dissenting opinion is written.

Are dissenting opinions influenced by multiple judges more likely to be of high literary quality? Who knows. This doesn’t tell us.

Unlike literary works, legal opinions rely heavily on the use of technical terminology.

This doesn’t resolve the discrepancy between judicial decisions and dissenting opinions. We need to know why the latter are sometimes of high literary quality.

The law is not to any great extent determined by dissenting opinions.

Since the law isn’t determined by dissenting opinions, authors of such opinions aren’t concerned about misinterpretation. They’re free to write however they like, which sometimes leads to high literary quality.

Judges spend much more time reading judicial decisions than reading works of high literary quality.

This doesn’t explain why dissenting opinions are sometimes of high literary quality. We don’t care what the judges usually read.

Judicial decisions issued by panels of judges are likely to be more widely read than are judicial decisions issued by a single judge who hears a case alone.

We’re interested in why dissenting opinions are sometimes of high literary quality. How widely-read judicial decisions are doesn’t clear anything up, since we don’t know the affect that being widely-read has on a judicial decision.

LSAT 127 – Section 2 – Question 22

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 127 - Section 2 - Question 22

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

J.Y.’s explanation

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 127 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Leave a Reply Cancel