In recent years, a growing belief that the way society decides what to treat as true is controlled through largely unrecognized discursive practices has led legal reformers to examine the complex interconnections between narrative and law. ██ ████ █████ ████████ █████ █████████ ███ █████ ██ █████████ ███████ █████ ███████ ███████ ██████ █████████ █████ ███████ ██████ ███ ██████ ████ ████████ ████ ███████ ██ ████ ███ ██████ ██████ ██ ██████ ███
Context ·How do we decide what is true or false?
Legal systems use competing narratives about events; judges and juries assign "truth"
Implications of solution ·Disruption of status quo, less advantage bestowed by legal training, emphasis on empathy
Passage Style
Critique or debate
Problem-analysis
9.
Which one of the following ████ ██████ ███ ████ ████ ██ ███ ████████
Question Type
Main point
In a Problem-Analysis passage, if the author presents a solution for a problem, the main point should typically capture that solution (and the author’s opinion about it, if any). Here, the author presents certain legal scholars’ advocacy of legal narratives as a way of solving the problem of traditional legal discourse’s assumption of objectivist principles.
This misdescribes the solution. The legal scholars don’t propose to instruct people on the forms of discourse favored by legal insiders. Rather, they propose to include personal narratives as a legitimate part of legal discourse.
This doesn’t capture the solution advocated by the legal scholars in P4. In addition, the harm the author describes in the passage results not from the adversarial system, but from the objectivist principles that are part of traditional legal discourse.
This best captures the main point, which is the fact that legal scholars propose a solution to the problem of traditional legal discourse’s reliance on objectivist principles. (C) accurately describes the solution proposed by these scholars.
This gets the legal scholars’ solution wrong. They don’t propose a language that better reflects objectivist principles. They want to replace abstract discourse based on objectivist principles with narratives.
This gets the legal scholars’ solution wrong. Their solution isn’t merely to recognize that we can’t get a single neutral description of an event. They propose replacing abstract discourse with personal narratives.
Difficulty
93% of people who answer get this correct
This is a slightly challenging question.
It is somewhat easier than other questions in this passage.
CURVE
Score of students with a 50% chance of getting this right
25%130
140
75%150
Analysis
Main point
Critique or debate
Law
Problem-analysis
Answer Popularity
PopularityAvg. score
a
1%
155
b
1%
160
c
93%
166
d
2%
156
e
4%
158
Question history
You don't have any history with this question.. yet!
You've discovered a premium feature!
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.