Two competing demands we make of the law create a troubling conflict that contributes to the law's frequent failure to deliver what we imagine it should. ███
██ ███ █████ █████ ████████ ██ ████ ███ ███ ██ ██ █████████ ██ ██████ ███████ ███ █████████ ██ ███ ██████████ ████████ ███ ██ █████ ██████████ █████ ██████ █████ ████ █ ████ ██ ███ ██ ██ ██████ ███ ██ ██ ████████ ███████ ████ ██ ██████ ██████████ ██ ███████ ██ ███████████████████ ██ ██ ██████ ███████ ███████ ██ ██████████ █████ ████ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ████ ███ ██████████ ██ ████ ████ ██ ███████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ██ ██████████ ████████ █████ █████
██ ██████ █████ ████ ██ ███ ████ ████ ██ ██████████████ ███████ ███████ ████ ███ █████████ ███████████ ██ █████████ ███ ███████████ ████████ ███ ███████ ██ ███████████ ████ ██████████ ██████ ███ █████ ██████ ██ █████ ██ ████ ███ ████████ ████████ █████████ ██████ ███████ ███████████ ███████ █████ █████ ██ █ ██████████ ██████ ██ ██████ █████████ ███████ ████ █████████ █████████ ███ ████ ████ ██████████ ██████████ ██ █████████ █████ ███ █████████ ██████████ ███
The passage most strongly supports █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ██████████ █████ █ █████████ ████████ ██ ███ ████
It tends to ██ ███ ████████ ██ ███ ████████ ███ ██ ███ ████████████ ███████ ██ █████ ███████████
The author never suggests that formalism is too detailed or not based on principles that are broad enough.
It may satisfy ███ ███████ ██ █████████ ██████ ███ ███ ████ ██ ███████ ██ ██████ ████████
Supported by P2. By opening with the transition “On the other hand, however, we want the law to be connected to social reality” the author suggests that formalism is not connected to social reality. In the last two sentences of the paragraph, the author describes the limits of formalism – it does not necessarily take into account the social context of individual cases. Thus, formalism – although it may satisfy objective reason in that it is rational and rule-based – can “fail to connect to social reality.”
It produces substantive ███████ ██ ██████████ █████ ██ ██ ██ ███████ █████████ ███ ███████ ██████████
Anti-supported. In P3, the author says that formalism, even if it is applied neutrally and without prejudice, still may not produce substantive justice if it is not sensitive to social context.
Its tension with ███████████ ███████ ██████ ████ █████ █████████ ██████████ ██ █████████ ██████████
The approach to deductive reasoning is not mentioned as something that causes conflict between formalism and substantive justice.
It can be ██████████ ████ ███████████ ███████ ██ ███████████ █ ███████████ ██ ██████ █████████████
The author saus that social equality is necessary to reconcile formalism and substantive justice. But having social equality is different from “formalizing a recognition of social inequalities.” Formalizing a recognition of social inequalities would simply involve recognizing those inequalities, but would not make society more equal.