Q9

[liu.linda3]

Hi, can someone explain why the answer can't be A? Thanks!

[ohthatpatrick]

Hey, there.

(A) is saying that the new trend is to instruct people in the forms of discourse favored by legal insiders.

But the point of the passage is that "the form of discourse favored by legal insiders" is the problem. This is just code for "objectivism".
Check out lines 34-36.

The solution? Legal narratives (i.e. powerful personal stories).

The first two paragraphs describe the problem with objectivism and how it excludes people who are "not fluent in the language of the law".

The last paragraph introduces the potential solution, which is legal narratives.

Hope this helps. Let me know if you have lingering qualms.

[WaltGrace1983]

Thought i'd add analysis on the rest.

(A) As noted, the key word here is "instructing." Everything else is actually fairly nice except the point of the passage is not that the people excluded are going to instructed on how to talk legal talk, so to speak. The point is that objectivism has some flaws and "legal narratives" seem to be a potential solution.

(B) It is true that the legal scholars have begun to realize the social harm. The author has too (line 32). However, this doesn't tell the whole story. Where are the ideas about legal narratives? In addition, it would be nice (though perhaps not necessary) to use the word "objectivism" in the answer choice.

(D) This one looked GREAT until we get to the very end about "new legal language that better reflected objectivist principles." The new legal language the author/legal scholars want is one that focuses less on objectivist principles and more on the stories themselves.

(E) There are two things wrong with this. First of all, I do not believe that the legal scholars or the author believe the legal narratives is a definitive (remedy). As the author notes from like 50 onward, legal narratives can or might have some positive outcomes but we cannot exactly say that legal narratives is the remedy. In addition, the part about it being "not possible to obtain a single neutral description of a particular event" is definitely not the "remedy" that the passage calls for. The "remedy," if you go as far as to say that it will be successful (which is unsupported as I have said), is more or less the "legal narratives."

[Yu440]

Hello,

Is E wrong also because it's narrow in scope? The passage devoted a lot to talking about alternative legal narratives, which was not mentioned in E.

Thanks!

[ohthatpatrick]

Yes, definitely.

If this answer isn't talking about "legal narrative", it isn't addressing the central topic of the passage.