- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 276
- Joined: Feb 06, 2024
- Mon Mar 04, 2024 3:12 pm
#105531
Hey SQ,
Looking at answer choice (B) and the statement in the passage which most correlates to it (lines 16- 20 "legal positivists regard disagreement among jurists as legitimate only if it arises over what the underlying convention is, and it is to be resolved by registering a consensus, not by (20) deciding what is morally right," the statement is also saying that legal positivists regard disagreement about the law as legitimate if the disagreement is about the underlying convention is. In other words, disagreeing over what the law is saying is ok - disagreeing about whether the law is morally right is not. This trait of positivism is addressed again in line 45, where Dworkin points out that positivists are concerned with what people think the law means. Both of these examples are showing proof that answer choice (B) is not something legal positivists believe.
Answer choice (D), meanwhile, is supported by these same statements - legal positivism is just this - determining the meaning of the law based on a consensus of whatever we interpret the law to be saying. Lines 46-49 use examples of who "these people" can be, but it does not limit that categorization to only those examples.
Looking at answer choice (B) and the statement in the passage which most correlates to it (lines 16- 20 "legal positivists regard disagreement among jurists as legitimate only if it arises over what the underlying convention is, and it is to be resolved by registering a consensus, not by (20) deciding what is morally right," the statement is also saying that legal positivists regard disagreement about the law as legitimate if the disagreement is about the underlying convention is. In other words, disagreeing over what the law is saying is ok - disagreeing about whether the law is morally right is not. This trait of positivism is addressed again in line 45, where Dworkin points out that positivists are concerned with what people think the law means. Both of these examples are showing proof that answer choice (B) is not something legal positivists believe.
Answer choice (D), meanwhile, is supported by these same statements - legal positivism is just this - determining the meaning of the law based on a consensus of whatever we interpret the law to be saying. Lines 46-49 use examples of who "these people" can be, but it does not limit that categorization to only those examples.