Self-study
P1
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. ███
Intro Topic ·
Two conflicting demands on law
There are two conflicting things we want in law.
Demand 1 ·
Formalism
Formal justice means we want law to be rational, consistently applied, and blind to the different social and economic situations of the people it applies to.
P2
██ ███ █████ █████ ████████ ██ ████ ███ ███ ██ ██ █████████ ██ ██████ ███████ ███ █████████ ██ ███ ██████████ ████████ ███ ██ █████ ██████████ █████ ██████ █████ ████ █ ████ ██ ███ ██ ██ ██████ ███ ██ ██ ████████ ███████ ████ ██ ██████ ██████████ ██ ███████ ██ ███████████████████ ██ ██ ██████ ███████ ███████ ██ ██████████ █████ ████ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ████ ███ ██████████ ██ ████ ████ ██ ███████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ██ ██████████ ████████ █████ █████
Demand 2 ·
Substantivism
Substantive justice means we want law to be fair in individual cases and sensitive to the context of those cases.
P3
██ ██████ █████ ████ ██ ███ ████ ████ ██ ██████████████ ███████ ███████ ████ ███ █████████ ███████████ ██ █████████ ███ ███████████ ████████ ███ ███████ ██ ███████████ ████ ██████████ ██████ ███ █████ ██████ ██ █████ ██ ████ ███ ████████ ████████ █████████ ██████ ███████ ███████████ ███████ █████ █████ ██ █ ██████████ ██████ ██ ██████ █████████ ███████ ████ █████████ █████████ ███ ████ ████ ██████████ ██████████ ██ █████████ █████ ███ █████████ ██████████ ███
Sub-conclusion ·
Cannot reconcile two demands
Formalism and substantive justice can’t be reconciled until there is a reasonable degree of social equality.
Main Conclusion ·
Abandon formalism
If we can’t have the kind of equality necessary for reconciling formalism and substantive justice, we should abandon formalism in favor of substantive justice.
Passage Style
Problem-analysis
Single position
1.
Which one of the following ██████ ██ █████ ████ █████████ █████████ ███ ████████ ██████████ █████ █████████ ██ █████ ████████
Question Type
WSE (RC)
The author’s conclusion about formalism is in the last paragraph – the author concludes that if we can’t have the kind of equality necessary for reconciling formalism and substantive justice, we should abandon formalism.
It’s hard to detect any clear assumptions underlying this conclusion. In the answers, let’s look for something that would suggest we might not want to abandon formalism, even if we haven’t reached a state of equality.
a
The vast majority ██ ██████ ███ █████ █████ ██ ███ █████████████ ██ ██████ ██████████ ███████ ███ ██ ███ ███ ███ █████████ ███ ██ █████████ █████ ██████████████
(A) tells us that most people know that formalism (procedural justice) is imperfect, and that they don’t see any real way to fix those imperfections. This doesn’t tell us anything remotely positive about formalism, so it doesn’t undermine the author’s conclusion that we should abandon formalism. If (A) does anything, it would strengthen the author’s conclusion about formalism.
b
Nonformalist legal systems ████ ████ █████ ██ ███████ ███████████ ███████ ████ ████ ██████████ ████ █████ █████████ █████████████
Remember, the author’s complaint about formalism in the second and third paragraphs is that formalism can lead to substantive injustice. But, (B) suggests that despite this flaw, formalist systems are still better at providing substantive justice than any alternative (nonformalist systems). This provides a reason that we would not want to abandon formalism.
c
Any type of ██████████ ██████ ████ ██ ██████████ ████ █ ███ ██ █████ █████ ██ ██████ ████ █████████ ██ █████ █████ ██████ █████ ███ ████ █████████
(C) appears to suggest that a formalist legal system might become less effective as the rules in that system become dated and less relevant. We don’t need to think too deeply about whether a formalist legal system is a “type of collective action that is formalized into a set of rules” or about whether the rules in a formalist legal system actually would become dated or less relevant. This answer conveys something negative about a system of rules, which isn’t what we’re looking for. We want something positive about formalism.
d
Societies in which █████ ██ ██████ ██████ ██████████ ████ ██ ███ █████████ ██ █ █████ ███ █████ █████ ████████
The author’s conclusion about formalism in the last paragraph is a hypothetical conditioned on a society’s lack of equality: if we can’t have the equality necessary to reconcile formalism and substantive justice, then we should abandon formalism. If it turns out that there are some societies that do have high equality, and that the level of equality in that society can reconcile formalism and substantive justice, the author’s conclusion simply doesn’t apply to those societies. What happens in those societies wouldn’t impact what the author believes should happen in societies without high equality.
A separate reason to eliminate (D) is that it doesn’t tell us anything about the achievement of substantive justice in the societies that use formalism. Sure, these societies use formalism, but are they failing to deliver substantive justice? Contrast (D) with the correct answer, (B) – (B) tells us about the achievement of substantive justice in formalist systems.
e
A formalist approach ██ ███ ███ ██ █████████ █████ ██ ██ ███ █████ ███ ████████ ██ █████ ██ ███ ███████████ ██ ██████████ ██████
(E) tells us something negative about formalism. So, if it does anything, it would strengthen the author’s conclusion about abandoning formalism.