#20 - Global Reference, Must Be True, Point at Issue

[Administrator]

Please post your questions below!

[nrpandolfo]

How does the answer to #20 stand with the answer to #18? I think this is why i got #18 wrong and #20 right. If we assume that passage A disagrees that it is correct to view judicial candor as an obligation that can be overruled (#20) then how can we say that a lack of judicial candor can have positive benefits in some circumstances (#18)?

Thanks

[Alex Bodaken]

nrpandolfo,

Thanks for the question on what, even less than a year after being published, has become something of an infamous reading comprehension passage. I say that not to imply that figuring out these answers is impossible, but to note that this passage (known to most as the "judicial candor" passage) is considered to be one of the most difficult in recent years, and so these questions are therefore quite tricky.

It is crucial to fully understand the position of both authors with respect to judicial candor. The position of the author of passage B is somewhat easier (though not easy) to suss out: she believes that judicial candor is generally required, but that there may be some exceptions. The author of passage A, however, barely tips her hand about her feelings about judicial candor, but eventually does - she says that a prudential defense of judicial candor doesn't hold up, but implies that a moral defense would (see the ending of the passage, starting with the word "rather..."). So in the end, we can say that the author of passage A sees judicial candor as a general requirement, period.

This leads us to the answer to #20: (E) states that the authors would be most likely to disagree over whether "it is correct to view judicial candor as an obligation that can be overruled in certain circumstances." We can see that the authors would disagree on this point: the author of passage A would say that there are no circumstances in which the obligation can be overruled (because it is a moral principle), while the author of passage B clearly outlines circumstances in which such an overruling would be permissible. Therefore, it is our credited answer here.

To return to #18, the correct answer (D) states: each author implies that a lack of judicial candor "could conceivably have positive benefits under certain circumstances." This is true - the author of passage A outlines scenarios where this could be the case ("transparent decision making provides better guidance to lower courts and litigants," etc.), while the author of passage B does the same ("candor is an essential prerequisite of all other restraints on abuse of judicial power," etc.). Because both authors indicate instances in which judicial candor would cause benefits (even if there are certain cases in which it may not), answer choice (D) is credited.

Hope that helps!
Alex

[Golsat]

Alex,

I think you may have the incorrect explanation for number 18. I think the question asks about the lack of judicial candor. You have listed benefits of judicial candor. I wanted to point that out so other students do not get confused.

[Adam Tyson]

Thanks for pointing that out, Golsat, and you are correct. What we should have said is that the reason the answers to 18 and 20 are not in conflict is because author A implies that a lack of candor might sometimes have a benefit in the form of a positive outcome, even while arguing that such positive outcomes are outweighed by the moral obligation to tell the truth. When, in the second paragraph, author A says that "duties of truth telling are not justified merely when they produce good outcomes", he implies that the truth doesn't always result in a good outcome, and thus implies further that sometimes better outcomes could be achieved by a lack of candor than with truthfulness.

So, A indicates that a lack of candor might have a good outcome, but despite that there are moral considerations that override the benefit of those outcomes.

To anyone a little confused by the earlier explanation, sorry about that! Alex was apparently reading the question as being about the benefits of candor rather than a lack of candor. Either way, D ends up as the correct answer there!

[Tarte au chocolate]

Hi!

I understand how Passage A shows judicial candor cannot be overruled because it is a moral obligation.

"while the author of passage B clearly outlines circumstances in which such an overruling would be permissible. Therefore, it is our credited answer here."

I am wondering where is place in Passage B that the author outlines circumstances in which an overruling would be permissible?

Thank you!

[Adam Tyson]

Thanks for the question, Tarte au chocolate! In the last paragraph of Passage B, the author tells us that the arguments in favor of judicial candor probably do NOT make it an unshakable obligation, and that those arguments probably do not "rebut the argument that judicial deception is warranted in cases where it yields some net benefit." In this way, the author is telling us that sometimes deception, rather than candor, may in fact be warranted in cases where a benefit is achieved.

While the author doesn't get into any specifics on that point - no clear examples - this does give us enough to select answer E here. Author A thinks the obligation is absolute, on moral grounds, while author B thinks there may be exceptions. I don't know if I would call that an "outline" of the circumstances so much as an acknowledgement that there may be such circumstances.

I hope that helps! This is a truly challenging passage!

[amys45]

Hi Adam!

Could you describe why answer choice B is incorrect?

Thank you!

[KelseyWoods]

Hi Amy!

For answer choice (B), we definitely know that the author of passage B would agree with that statement (from the first sentence of passage B) but can we say that the author of passage A would disagree with that statement? Nope! If anything, I'd say passage A author would most likely also agree with that statement since they say in the second to last sentence "the duty to speak truthfully and openly is an independent constraint on our actions."

You can treat Point at Issue questions in RC the same way you treat them in LR: by using the Agree/Disagree Test. For an answer choice to be correct, you must know what both authors would say about that answer choice and you must know that one would say "Yes, I agree, that statement is correct" and the other would say "No, I disagree, the statement is incorrect." If they would both agree with that statement, then it can't be the point at issue!

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey