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

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation
(See the complete passage discussion here: lsat/viewtopic.php?t=10851)

The correct answer choice is (E)

In response to this Must Be True, Author’s Perspective question, we should consider the author’s reasons for objecting to the current approach to judicial recusals. Once again, passage Structure is key, as the detrimental effects of this approach are discussed primarily in the second paragraph. The chief complaint is that the current rules are too vague and overly focused on appearances. This, says the author, could cause sources of real bias to be overlooked by both observers and judges.

Answer Choice (A): The author does not discuss assurances to the general public regarding adequate protection against judicial bias. This choice does not describe the author’s concern about the current approach to recusal, and should be eliminated from contention.

Answer choice (B): The passage never mentions how the judges feel about their professional codes of conduct.

Answer Choice (C): This answer may be enticing, because the author does worry about the potential to overlook bias. However, it is not clear that this happens in “many cases.” Further, the passage does not support the assertion that judges are rarely removed for cases of bias—the focus on appearances under the current system would support the opposite inference, that such removals might not be very rare.

Answer Choice (D): This is an Opposite answer, because the author explicitly refers to the possibility, under the current system, for a judge’s bias to remain unnoticed (lines 22-24).

Answer Choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. The second part of this answer choice, which refers to the potential for real bias to be overlooked, matches our prephrase above and can easily be proven by reference to lines 22-24. As for the notion that judges are sometimes removed for bias when they shouldn’t be, we can infer that from the fact that the author wishes to leave the decision to the judges, and take the right to request disqualification away from other parties.

[KwakuS]

Hello,

Thank you for this explanation. I am having a hard time understanding why C and D are wrong. Both of them discuss cases in which the system handles judges' biases incorrectly. To my understanding, that is what the author was trying to address. Why are these answers then consider wrong?

Thank you,
Kwaku

[atierney]

Hello,

So, for this question, I didn't find anything in the passage that mentioned answer choice C as a result under the current system. One thing to remember for these questions is that you want to try to support the answer choice with evidence from the passage, and I couldn't find any specific evidence with respect to the author considering that judges are rarely removed from cases when they are actually biased. A tip for deciding between answers that use qualifiers like "rarely": always be weary of answer choices with the more extreme qualifier, such answer choices are inherently more difficult to prove.

Accordingly, we can use this logic to eliminate answer choice D as well, since the essential difference between D and E is the use of the qualifier. Because the author doesn't focus his complaint about recusal on actual statistical facts or results, he is unlikely to agree with statements that implicitly rely upon such statistics. We don't actually know whether C or D are factually true, and, once again, nothing the author states in the passage gives rise to an indication that the author is aware/anticipates such facts.

Let me know if you have further questions.

[German.Steel]

Can you expand on how to eliminate (A)? This is tricky to me because "assure" has two common definitions: 1) tell someone something positively or confidently to dispel any doubts they may have. 2) make (something) certain to happen.

I agree that (A) can be easily dismissed under the first definition, as the author never alludes to "assurances to the general public" or anything adjacent. However, under the second definition, (A) strikes me as very well-supported, particularly by the final sentence of P2: "Focusing on appearances may cause sources of actual bias that are not apparent to outside observers, or even to judges themselves, to be overlooked." Given this statement, I must conclude that it is quite likely that the author would agree with (A), again assuming the second definition of "assure."

I grant that the second claim in (E) is well-supported by the same sentence I cited above. The first claim, on the other hand, is a little more dicey; I certainly agree that this seems to be an unstated assumption of P2, but given the much more explicit support for (A), I fail to understand how the credited response meets the stringent standards for correctness typically seen on the LSAT.

Lastly, I will concede that the language of (E) is far more supportable than the much stronger claim made in (A), and perhaps this is what it ultimately boils down to.

I've rambled on too long already...I suppose my biggest concern is around the ambiguity of how to interpret "assure" here, given the two definitions. Any advice on this issue in particular? Thanks in advance.

[evelineliu]

Hi there,

You can eliminate (A) because it is out of scope. The author does not discuss the attitudes of the general public toward the current standards. I read "assure" as "ensure" in this question.

Best,
Eveline

[German.Steel]

Hi there,

You can eliminate (A) because it is out of scope. The author does not discuss the attitudes of the general public toward the current standards. I read "assure" as "ensure" in this question.

Best,
Eveline

Thank you! However, that doesn't address the points I made at all. The question is about something the author would be most likely to agree with. My contention is that under the second definition, it is quite conceivable that the author would agree that the current standards fail to assure (anyone, the general public, the man on the moon) "that the legal system is adequately protected against judicial bias."

I think I can see why (E) is the better, more supportable answer, but I'm still unconvinced that (A) can be so easily dismissed as you are claiming.

[Adam Tyson]

The second definition you provided is not applicable in this case, German.Steel, because it would not work grammatically in that answer choice. To "assure the general public" of something fits squarely under the first definition. To use the second definition, the answer choice would have to be changed, maybe to something like "The standards in place fail to assure that the legal system is adequately protected against judicial bias."

[attorneyatpaw]

Hi there,

You can eliminate (A) because it is out of scope. The author does not discuss the attitudes of the general public toward the current standards. I read "assure" as "ensure" in this question.

Best,
Eveline

Hello, I also had a similar question about (A). Maybe I'm misunderstanding how to approach inference questions but when an LSAT question asks what the author is "most likely" thinking, doesn't it imply that it wasn't explicitly stated in the passage? In that case, even though the passage never explicitly talked about what the general public thinks about the legal standards in place, couldn't we infer that the author might think that they would also agree with him/her that the legal system isn't adequately protected against bias based on the arguments the author laid out throughout the passage?

[attorneyatpaw]

Hi there,

You can eliminate (A) because it is out of scope. The author does not discuss the attitudes of the general public toward the current standards. I read "assure" as "ensure" in this question.

Best,
Eveline

To add to my thought above, I dismissed answer (E) because 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" in the same way that the passage never explicitly talked about the opinion of the general public stated in answer choice (A). I guess it's unclear to me when one answer's "inference leap" is justified when another is not.


Hello, I also had a similar question about (A). Maybe I'm misunderstanding how to approach inference questions but when an LSAT question asks what the author is "most likely" thinking, doesn't it imply that it wasn't explicitly stated in the passage? In that case, even though the passage never explicitly talked about what the general public thinks about the legal standards in place, couldn't we infer that the author might think that they would also agree with him/her that the legal system isn't adequately protected against bias based on the arguments the author laid out throughout the passage?

[Jeff Wren]

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.