PT110.S4.P3.Q17 > Analytics

Hide analysis

Philosopher Denise Meyerson views the Critical Legal Studies (CLS) movement as seeking to debunk orthodox legal theory by exposing its contradictions. ████████ ████████ ██████ ████ ███ ██████████ ████ ██ ███ ██████████████ █████ ████ ██████ ███ ████ ███ █████████ ███ ██████ ████ ████████ █████ ██ ████████ █████ ███████

Denise Myerson's (DM) Perspective · Criticism of Critical Legal Studies (CLS)

CLS tries to show contradictions in orthodox legal theory. But, CLS points to contradictions that don't exist.

CLS Perspective (according to DM) · Conflicting values in law make law irrational

Conflicting values means there are always multiple equally plausible answers to any legal question. And, choosing one answer over another is always irrational.

DM's response · Can rank conflicting values, so different answers are not always equal

Conflicting values may lead to multiple answers, but we can sometimes rationally choose one answer over another based on ranking of values.

██ █████████ ████ █████████ ████ ████ ███ ███ █████████ ███ ███████ ███████████ ██ ████ ███ ██████ ████ ███ ██████ ███████ ████ ████ ██ ███████████ ██ ███ █████████ █ ████████ ████ ██ ███ ██████████ ████████ ████ ███ ██ █████████████ ████████ ███████ ████ ███████ ██████ ████ ███████ ██ █████████████ ██ ███ ██████ ███████ ███ ██████████ █████████████ ██ ██████ ██████ ███████ ██ ███ ██████████ ███████ ████ ██ █████ ███████ ██ ███ ███ █████ ███ ████ ███████ ████████████ ██████ ██ ███ ████████████ ██ ████████ █ ████████ ███████ ██ ███ █████ ██ █████ ████████ ██ ███████ ███ ██████████████ ████ ███████████ ██████ ███ ██████ █████ ████ ███ ████ ███ ████████████ ████████████ ███████ ██ ████ ████ ██ ████ ██████ ██ █ ███████ ██ ███ ███ ████ ███████ ██████ ███ ██ ███ █████ ██ ███████████

DM's additional response · Choice between equally plausible answers is not always irrational

Two answers can be equally plausible, but are both reasonable compared to a third answer.

CLS perspective (according to DM) · Legal formalism requires belief that law has moral authority

Legal formalism is the view that there's a method that can decide the correct answers to legal questions.

DM's response · Law does not need moral authority to provide unambiguous answers

Illustration: We can clearly identify the winner of game in which people try to steal the highest value item. This doesn't mean there's any moral authority in the game or the identification of the winner.

CLS's rebuttal · DM's game illustration isn't like actual legal cases

In legal cases, we have to appeal to things beyond the rules, such as the purpose of laws, and societal policies and values.

███ ████████ ███████ ████ ████ ██████████████ ███ ██ ██████ ██ ████ ███ ███ ████████ █████ ███ █████ ██ ███ █████

DM's rebuttal · The game illustration is like actual legal cases

Purpose, policies, and values can be characterized as part of the rules of the game.

Passage Style

Critique or debate

17.

The author's primary purpose in ███ ███████ ██ ██

evaluate divergent legal █████████

The author himself doesn’t evaluate multiple legal doctrines. He just presents Meyerson’s evaluation of the CLS movement.

explain how a ███████████ █████

Even if we concede that there is a “controversy” between Meyerson and the CLS movement, the author never explains how it arose. He just presents Meyerson’s current criticisms.

advocate a new ██████████████ ██ █████ █████████

We don’t know whether Meyerson’s or the CLS movement’s perspectives are “new interpretations.” Even if they are, the author doesn’t actually advocate for anything. He just presents Meyerson’s criticisms of the CLS movement.

describe a challenge ██ █ ██████ ██ ███████

The author describes Meyerson’s challenge to a school of thought: the CLS movement. We don’t know what the author himself believes about any of this; he’s just presenting Meyerson’s criticisms.

79%

refute claims made ██ ███████ ████████

We don’t know whether various proponents of the CLS movement are scholars. Even if they are, we’re asked about the author’s purpose in the passage. The author is not refuting their claims. He’s just presenting Meyerson’s refutation of their claims.

12%

Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.

It takes about five minutes.

Take the free diagnostic

More free LSAT prep: Sample LSAT questions Full-length diagnostic & practice test All free LSAT resources

PrepTest 110 - Section 4 - Passage 3 - Question 17

Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action

PrepTest 110 - Section 4 - Passage 3 - Question 17

Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Want to know why the right answer is right?