Q19

[megm7267]

This passage has a lot of complex wording...How do you get to the answer in Q19?

[hwsitgoing]

I second this question! In particular I had trouble eliminating D and E. Although I can see when A makes sense, it would really help to see someone break down why exactly D and E are wrong.

I found some of these questions in this passage particularly difficult! Maybe the dull passage just made me weary

Thank you!

[LSAT-Chang]

Although this may not be the "ideal" process, this was how I attacked this question (this passage was indeed very difficult for me as well):

1. Since the question was asking for what idea the particular phrase "far-reaching implications" was referring to, I went back to those lines that specifically mentioned that and noticed that the "far-reaching implications" were something that the CLS proponents argued for. I also noticed that these were implications about the idea that conflicting values can exist.
2. I started to think what these far-reaching implications were made by these CLS proponents in regards to the idea of having conflicting values. I recalled that the first and second paragraph mentioned about what these CLS proponents believed about the conflicting values and scanned those parts in particular, and found that lines 11~15 was where the goodies were! It specifically states that the consequence (i.e. implications) of having these conflicting values is that the choice between these conflicting answers must necessarily be arbitrary or irrational. Thus, (A) is our answer since it literally illustrates what these "far-reaching implications" made my the CLS proponents were.

We also have evidence from the beginning of the 3rd paragraph in that Meyerson specifically states that "it does not follow that the choice between them must be irrational" and she further elaborates on this for the rest of the paragraph, and concludes from this that this notion does not have far-reaching implications as CLS proponents have noted. With all this evidence, we can clearly prove (A) to be true! Hope this helped a bit!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Wow, that explanation is perfect, nice work So!

Let me also address the incorrect answers, since some folks were wondering about those here.

(B) is something that we can infer from the passage that CLS would agree with, but not a consequence mentioned by CLS.
(C) is something that we can infer from the passage that Meyerson probably would agree with, but is not a consequence or implication of a claim by CLS.
(D) represents the claim of CLS, but not an implication of the claim. From the fact that there is no correct answer, the implication is that all decisions are arbitrary.
(E) twists the information from the passage. CLS does seem to be judging orthodox legal theory and they do say that decisions do seem to be irrational, but CLS never claims that rationality is the most relevant factor in judging decisions. And certainly does not represent the far-reaching implications mentioned in line 36.

Again nice work So!

[LSAT-Chang]

Thank you Matt! It always feels good to get feedback from one of the instructors

[amandarruff]

My problem with this question is that A and D look to mean the same thing with the exception that D appears to be broader. If no legal question has a single correct answer (would it not then be arbitrary based on the situations that make it able to have multiple correct choices or conflicting solutions?

Any takers this question still confuses me after reading the forum.

Thanks!!!

[einuoa]

I'll offer my take on the choices on this question,

Choice B is almost a direct paraphrase of lines 11-15. The "far-reaching idea" is against the second part of CLS, that the choice between conflicting answers must necessarily be arbitrary or irrational, rather than that there is no uniquely right solution to legal cases. This is because the sentence says that the acknowledgment that conflicting values can exist, then does not have the far-reaching implications imputed by CLS, drawing the implication back to what CLS says, that the choice between conflicting answers must necessarily be arbitrary or irrational.

Choice D discusses the larger implication. Back to line 11-15, the text says that "conflicting values generate equally plausible but opposing answers to any given legal question, and CONSEQUENTLY, that the choice between conflicting answers must necessarily be arbitrary or irrational." The existence of conflicting values in the law makes it so that conflicting answers must necessarily be arbitrary, but CLS proponents don't say that no legal question will have a single correct answer, which is a bit too strong. Maybe...CLS proponents even think that in the case where there are no conflicting values, then there can be a single correct answer, but of course that is just an assumption. My point is that choice D isn't directly stated in the text.

Hope that helps a little, and sorry this explanation is a bit verbose.

[CatherineS487]

I'm still not understanding why D is wrong.

After going back to the sentence with phrase in question, I understood the question stem to be asking us to identify the "far-reaching implications" of the "acknowledgement that conflicting values exist" according to CLS.

The first sentence of the 2nd paragraph says that "...CLS proponents hold that the existence of conflicting values in the law implies the absence of any uniquely right solution to legal cases."

Doesn't this directly state that according to CLS, the existence/acknowledgment that conflicting values exist has the implication that there is no uniquely right solution to any legal case? Which is a paraphrase of answer choice D?

Thanks!!