Q15

[peg_city]

Where does it say B, Expertise in legal discourse affords power in most western societies?

Thanks

[giladedelman]

Thanks for your question.

First, we know that objectivism "has supported most Western legal and intellectual systems for centuries." (First paragraph.)

So that establishes the context of the passage: we're talking about a system in place in most Western societies.

Then in the last paragraph we're told:

"The compelling force of personal narrative can create a sense of empathy between legal insiders and people traditionally excluded from legal discourse and, hence, from power."

That's the kicker. It's saying that if you're excluded from legal discourse, you're excluded from power; that implies that expertise in legal discourse is a source of power. That's why (B) is correct.

(A), (C), and (E) are unsupported.

(D) contradicts the passage; legal discourse has actually relied upon the idea of objective observers.

Does that answer your question?

[MeenaV936]

Why is A unsupported based on lines 34-37?

[ohthatpatrick]

Lines 34-37 say

People who are trained in legal discourse are more often thought of as saying something "true".

It doesn't mention where they got their training in legal discourse. Do we know whether the legal establishment CONTROLS ACCESS to this training?

The passage never discusses whether something controls access.

We would commonsensically assume that people in the legal establishment are usually trained in legal discourse, but other people could also be trained in legal discourse (government officials and policy-makers, for instance).

It's a very strong and specific claim to say that, "in more than 50% of Western societies, the legal establishment is the only way to get training in legal discourse".

Hope this helps.