Q15

[jimmy902o]

could please go through the answer choices here? when taking the test I tried working wrong to right but didnt like any of the choices so i just guessed D. The answer choice E here reads more like what i would expect from a describe the organization of the passage type question rather then what is the main idea

[demetri.blaisdell]

Thanks for posting, jimmy902o. Even by RC standards, this is a pretty bland passage. I'll do my best to run through the answer choices. (E) is the correct answer because it best describes all three paragraphs. The CLS supporters raise at least three different challenges to legal formalism (the name for the orthodox legal theory that CLS supporters are attacking is given in line 40). Meyerson responds to all of them. We also don't get any indication of the author's opinion.

Wrong answers:

(A) has the legal theorists on the wrong side of the scale. Meyerson is a philosopher but the legal theorists are actually the ones on the same side as CLS. The CLS people are attacking the orthodox legal theory (legal formalism).

(B) is out of scope. Neither side accuses the other of overlooking the complexity of legal dilemmas.

(C) has the central argument wrong. It's CLS supporters that criticize legal formalize for being self-contradictory (see lines 2-5).

(D) is tempting but unsupported. While Meyerson does object to several of the tenets of CLS, we have no way of deciding which of her arguments is most important.

I hope this helps. Let me know if you have any questions.

Demetri

[Dyounker]

I am under the impression that B is implied by lines 44-45. Wouldn't charging legal formalism as being unambiguous essentially be the same as overlooking its complexity?

[ohthatpatrick]

I'm having a hard time seeing how "being unambiguous" means the same thing as "overlooking its complexity".

Can you go into more detail about how you saw those two relating or try to put that section into your own words?

To me, 'being unambiguous' means 'being clear'.

It sounds like a good thing, and it doesn't seem to connect in any way to issues of complexity.

There are a couple other things we could say about (B), though.

1. Even if this were an accurate paraphrase of lines 44-45, how would we elevate that line to the main point?

Beware that on main point questions, there is normally one trap answer that is true but too narrow.

Meyerson has a whole series of complaints about CLS, so it would be hard to pick any answer choice that focuses on one specific complaint and call that the main point.

2. (B) is saying that, according to Meyerson, CLS "overlooks complexity".

You were comparing that to "being unambiguous". Did Meyerson say that CLS is being unambiguous?

No, that's distorting the context of those lines.

Legal formalism, i.e. orthodox legal theory, considers the law to be unambiguous ... the law is clear ... there is a method capable of giving solutions to legal problems.

CLS says that if legal formalists believe that, then they must believe that the legal process has moral authority.

Meyerson says, "No it doesn't, CLS. You can consider the law unambiguous without assigning moral authority to the law."

That's when she launches into her analogy to flesh out that point.

So the phrase you have in mind, "being unambiguous" is a phrase that legal formalists apply to the law.

The phrase "overlooks the complexity" in (B) is something Meyerson is applying to CLS.

So even if those ideas meant the same thing, they wouldn't be applying to the same nouns.

It would be like if the passage said:
Sally is pretty.

and we picked an answer saying
(B) Karen is attractive.

Even though 'pretty' and 'attractive' are somewhat synonymous, the things they're being applied to are different in the passage vs. the answer choice.

Hope this helps. Feel free to clarify your interpretation of the text.