LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

Get expert LSAT preparation and law school admissions advice from PowerScore Test Preparation.

 Administrator
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 8950
  • Joined: Feb 02, 2011
|
#41501
Please post your questions below!
 chian9010
  • Posts: 81
  • Joined: Jun 08, 2018
|
#57143
Hi,

I am confused in between A and C.

After reading the two articles, it seems the tone of each author is like author A doesn't think judge need to believe what they said but author B think judge should.

Is C the correct answer is because that:
on line 25 it seems like author A doesn't agree that duties of truth is justified merely when they produce good outcome
And for author B he mentions on line 48 that lack of candor is likely to increase public cynicism about the judical system (bad outcome)
 James Finch
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 943
  • Joined: Sep 06, 2017
|
#58425
Hi Chian,

Yes, line 25 clearly shows that the author of passage A believes judicial candor is necessary regardless of outcome, while passage B introduces the idea of "cost-benefit calculus" to judicial candor, where outcomes would generally be worse if judges are not honest. However, this leaves open the possibility of a scenario where being honest would lead to a worse outcome than being dishonest, and B's would likely agree with being dishonest while A's author definitely wouldn't.

(A) isn't really addressed in either passage, although one could infer that Passage A's author would agree with it; but the author of B's opinion would still be unknown, so it's not the correct answer choice.

Hope this helps!
User avatar
 amys45
  • Posts: 10
  • Joined: Dec 22, 2020
|
#83676
Hi PowerScore Team!

I was wondering why B is incorrect. Is it because we don't have enough information to know what the author of Passage A would think about this? I believe that the author of Passage B would agree with this statement, since we're told in paragraph two of Passage B that candor is an essential prerequisite to judicial restraint, which then includes the examples of limitations imposed by constituents. Would you agree?

Thank you for your help!
User avatar
 KelseyWoods
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 1079
  • Joined: Jun 26, 2013
|
#83716
Hi Amy!

You're exactly right! Answer choice (B) is something that we know that Passage B author will agree with (from the sentence you quoted), but we don't know what Passage A author thinks about that statement. For a Point At Issue question, we have to know what both authors think about a question. Often, an incorrect answer choice will be a statement which we know that one author definitely agrees or disagrees with, but we cannot be sure whether the other author agrees or disagrees with it.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey
User avatar
 amys45
  • Posts: 10
  • Joined: Dec 22, 2020
|
#85431
This is very helpful! Thank you, Kelsey!
User avatar
 lsatstudent2
  • Posts: 26
  • Joined: Jan 16, 2023
|
#98909
Aren't A and C essentially the same meaning?
User avatar
 Jeff Wren
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 705
  • Joined: Oct 19, 2022
|
#98952
Hi lsatstudent2,

There is an important difference between Answers A and C.

Answer A describes a situation where a judge believes some, but not all, of the reasons given in his or her judicial decision and states that this qualifies as a violation of the principal of judicial candor. According to the passages, the principal of judicial candor simply means that "judges must believe what they say in their opinions" (line 2). Passage A also refers to it as "the principal of judicial sincerity" (lines 10-11, 29).

Based on this general definition, the author of Passage A would agree that a judge who doesn't believe some of the reasons given in his or her judicial decision would be violating the principle of judicial candor. The author of Passage B would also likely agree that this would constitute a violation of the principle of judicial candor. Note that whether such an action violates the principle is a different issue than whether the principle itself is always correct or whether there are ever good reasons for violating the principle.

Answer C is getting at whether the principal (or judicial duty) to be candid is always justified regardless of the outcomes. Here, the authors disagree. For the author of Passage A, judges have a moral duty to be truthful even if it doesn't produce good outcomes (lines 24-31). The author of Passage B believes that the important benefits of judges being truthful must be weighed in the cost benefit analysis in deciding whether to be candid, but allows the possibility that not being candid may be better in some circumstances (lines 51-61).

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

Analyze and track your performance with our Testing and Analytics Package.