Q18

[norginz]

Hi,

Can you explain why the answer to 18 is E? In the passage, Meyerson considers "external considerations" as part of the rules of and not seperate from the game. How would whether these considerations are separate from or integral to law a matter of debate? Thanks.

[giladedelman]

Thanks for posting!

I remember being annoyed by this question, too, because Meyerson clearly weighs in on the issue. But remember, "matter of debate" doesn't mean the same thing as "up for debate" or "debatable"; it doesn't mean Meyerson has no opinion, it just means, technically, that this is the subject of a disagreement. So Meyerson would definitely agree that whether the issues are separate or integral is a matter of debate because she's engaged in precisely this debate with the critics on the other side! She has first-hand experience that this is a matter of debate.

Does that answer your question?

[skapur777]

Honestly I don't understand the last paragraph at all, no matter how many times I read it.

CLS has a problem with the fact that this deductive legal method requires using the law acting as a moral authority. but then the author goes into some game analogy that I don't understand. My take on it is:

If the law was as unambiguous as CLS wants it to be, then that still doesn't make it great. Imagine a game where you have to steal something, and the rules are very clear (unambiguous) that stealing the highest value item in the shop determines the winner. But then everything from "while a person may easily identify..." to the end is really confusing to me. So i other words from line 48 to the end. I don't get it, what's he trying to say here?

[giladedelman]

Let me try to break this down for you.

The paragraph basically alternates between CLS and Meyerson:

CLS claim
Meyerson rebuttal
CLS claim
Meyerson rebuttal

First, as you pointed out, we get the CLS argument that legal formalism requires the belief that the legal system has moral authority.

Meyerson disagrees with this position, and uses the analogy of the stealing game: just because everyone recognizes the winner and loser according to the rules of the game doesn't mean they believe it is morally valid. Her point is that you can believe in the law's ability to yield unambiguous results without believing in the moral authority of those results. CLS, on the other hand, thinks those two beliefs are inseparable.

So CLS counters by saying that legal cases aren't like games, because you can't apply the rules without appealing to external value considerations.

Finally, Meyerson addresses this counterpoint by saying that those "external" considerations may be seen as part of the rules of the game.

Does that clear this up for you, or are you still confused?

[xinglipku]

Hi, sorry I still don't quite understand how does Mayerson's reply that "such considerations may be viewed as part of the rules of the game" lead to her conclusion that the rules of the game doesn't necessarily have moral authority?

[slimjimsquinn]

xinglipku:

I think the purpose of that statement was to counter the other side's objections.

Imagine the last paragraph as a live debate going on between the two sides. Mayerson presents an argument by analogy. CLS responds by pointing out relevant differences, attempting to destroy the analogy. Mayerson responds by saying that there is no difference, since external considerations ARE a part of the legal case.

By attacking dismantling the other side's objections, Mayerson makes her conclusion (unambiguity does not demonstrate legitimacy) more likely to stand.

The third paragraph was a jumble of confusion for me, so I may not have gotten that right. Any thoughts, moderators?

[alex.cheng.2012]

So I think it can safely said that answers A-D are unsupported. When I was doing this problem, none of the answers looked appealing. They all seemed unsupported.

But if you go back and read line 54-56, you see that M replies that "such considerations may be viewed as part of..." The keywords "may be" allows us to infer that M is open up to other possibilities, as opposed to making an absolute statement. This is expressed in the correct answer (E).

[deedubbew]

Why not C?

[ohthatpatrick]

Remember, the correct answer needs textual support.

The reason (E) is the correct answer is simply that we can support it with lines 50-56. Meyerson says "these external considerations may be viewed as part of, not separate from" in response to a CLS scholar who might say "these external considerations are separate from the rules of the legal game".

As you examine each answer choice, you're asking yourself, "did we talk about that? can I find a line reference for that?"

If an answer choice has something extreme, comparative, or out of scope that isn't supportable from the text, you get rid of it!

(A) This is an unsupported comparison. There's nothing in those last few sentences that says "the more you believe in the legal process, the more/less relevant you believe these external considerations are".

(B) This again is an unsupported comparison. There's nothing in those last few sentences that says "the more the policies and values are endorsed, the more these considerations are part of the legal process".

(C) This is conditional, which is extreme. There's nothing to support the comparison "when external considerations have more moral force than the law". There's also nothing to support Meyerson saying that we SHOULD favor these external considerations.

(D) This is conditional, which is extreme. The last few sentences don't talk about USING these external considerations to determine a legal solution.

(E) Just to contrast with the previous four answers, this is an extremely weak claim: "_____ is a matter of debate". All you need to support that statement is SOME evidence of disagreement. Also, in the last few sentences of the passage, were we talking about whether external considerations were "separate" or "integral" to the legal process?

Sure. "part of, not separate from, the rules of the game" has a match for 'separate' and 'integral'. The 'game' the passage is referring to is 'legal cases', from line 50.

[joewoo198256]

So I think it can safely said that answers A-D are unsupported. When I was doing this problem, none of the answers looked appealing. They all seemed unsupported.

But if you go back and read line 54-56, you see that M replies that "such considerations may be viewed as part of..." The keywords "may be" allows us to infer that M is open up to other possibilities, as opposed to making an absolute statement. This is expressed in the correct answer (E).

totally agree! I think may be is very important here, which means M is not that certain about this issue, which means it is open to debate. I don't think you need to understand the complete logic train here to answer this question.