#14 - Concept Reference, Must Be True, Author's Perspective

[Dancingbambarina]

Hi attorneyatpaw,

This is a tricky question, and Answer A is a tempting answer that many people chose.

While you are right that the correct answer to these questions may not be explicitly stated in the passage, it does need to be supported by information in the passage. In other words, it should follow the author's line of reasoning/train of thought.

The question is asking for "an accurate description of the effects of the current approach to recusal and disqualification of judges" according to the author.

The first step in answering this question is prephrasing an answer based on what the author stated about the effects of the current approach in the passage. We know that the author is critical of the current system and believes that it should be replaced with a written explanation of the judge's reasoning (lines 29-37). We also know that the current system focuses not just on actual bias but also on even the "appearance of impropriety" (line 5). Finally we know that the author worries that focusing on the appearance may risk overlooking cases of actual bias that are not apparent to observers (lines 22-24).

The second half of Answer E exactly matches one of the points in the passage and our prephrase. The next step is to test the first half of the answer to see if this is a "half-right, half wrong" answer trap, or if this is indeed the correct answer.

As for first part of Answer E, you're correct that:

the passage never explicitly talked about the first part of the answer, "Judges are sometimes removed from cases for bias even though they are not actually biased"

However, while this isn't explicitly stated, it can reasonably be inferred from the content in the passage. First, the passage discusses the idea of "the appearance of impropriety" (line 5) and then states that "Judges are expected to recuse (i.e. remove) themselves from any case in which their impartiality might reasonably be questioned" (lines 5-7). This means that judges are expected to remove themselves in certain circumstances even if the judge is not actually biased in reality simply because it may appear that the judge could be biased given the situation.

The passage then goes on to explain how "the rules provide vague guidance at best" (line 12), which further suggests that judges may err on the side of caution and recuse themselves even if they are not actually biased, just to avoid any appearance of bias.

Finally, the author recommends eliminating disqualification motions alleging bias, "whether actual or apparent" (line 33), describing this as an "unreliable mechanism" (line 33).

In a sense, the idea that judges are sometimes removed even when they aren't actually biased is simply the other side of the problem of the current approach according to the author, which is that the current approach isn't focused on what really matters, specifically whether the judge's decision can be defended following legal reasoning.

As for Answer A, we don't actually know how the author feels about the general public's view on this issue, and it would be too much of a stretch to assume this. For all we know, it is possible that the public does feel adequately assured by the current system because the general public has no idea of the problem that the author is raising in the passage. In other words, the author isn't necessarily raising this issue because the public is worried about it, instead the author is worried about it even if this is generally not well known.

Surely the 2nd paart of D is correct, supported by lines 5 to 7. If that happens, it would be plausible to infer the second part of D. But am I right the first part part is too strong with RARELY, which is much stornger than MANY, which basically only implies that it happens sometimes which is common sense as thousands of cases occur every day.

Thank you so much.