- Wed Jan 08, 2025 3:12 pm
#111377
Hi Dbersh!
If we look at Lines 12-15, we can see that the passage states that: "Objectivism holds that there is a single neutral description of each event that is unskewed by any particular point of view and that has a privileged position over all other accounts."
Now, let's look at Lines 41-44: "Objectivist legal discourse systematically disallows the language of emotion and experience by focusing on cognition in its narrowest sense." The passage then proceeds to discuss how powerful and compelling personal stories may be able to sway legal insiders to listen to those not fluent in legal language, whereas objectivism heavily favors those who are fluent in legal language.
Finally, let's look at Lines 31-37: "The societal harm caused by the assumption of
objectivist principles in traditional legal discourse is that... the stories judged to be objectively true are those told by people who are trained in legal discourse, while the stories of those who are not fluent in the language of the law are rejected as false."
Since this passage is largely focused on the concept of narratives/stories/descriptions, we can rule out Answer Choice B, since "visual cues" are not necessarily playing a role here, whereas dispassionate logical thinking certainly is. Under objectivism, an attorney would be able to create a more compelling narrative/account than would a layman, solely based on their knowledge of legal discourse. Another factor to consider is that this passage doesn't discuss actual physical evidence much, or witness testimonies or anything like that, where visual cues would likely play more of a role.
I hope this helps!
