Passage Set#2 Qs. 5

[lunsandy]

Hi Powerscore,

I read the explanation for E, but I still fail to see how the author of Passage B would support E. The author of Passage B say that "activist judges attempt to change laws under the guise of "constitutional interpretation"- how does that equate to judges do not consider themselves as activists?

[nicholaspavic]

Hi lunsandy,

The answer to your question is to be found in lines 29-30 about the such judges only considering themselves "interpreters" and not "activists" and at line 61 which agrees that the judges think they are doing "interpretation." Remember that you are looking for agreement from the authors of BOTH passages. That is why Answer Choice (E) is correct. Thanks for the great question!

[lunsandy]

Hi Nicholaspavic,

Thank you for your reply. It was helpful!

I can see how line 29/30 points to the author of Passage A agreeing with answer E and the author of Passage B would also say the same because "activist judges attempt to change laws under the guise of "constitutional interpretation." So the author of Passage B thinks that the judges themselves probably don't see themselves as activists, but they are because they are working under the "guise" of constitutional interpretation. Is this correct?

I guess I chose B because Passage A directly speaks to strict constructionists, and I thought Passage B author would also think the same because the author seems to reject "judicial activists". But I am wrong because Passage B does not directly say anything about strict constructionists so I can't make that assumption especially for a MSS question?

Thanks a lot!

[Eric Ockert]

Hi lunsandy!

The big problem with answer choice (B) is language. It is difficult to say that both authors agree that strict constructionists believe the Constitution should always be interpreted literally. One big hint that this is too much can be found in L50-52 where Author B says:

"...every effort should be made, within reason, to construe the document's meaning in accordance with its framers' original intent."

I don't think that would give you an agreement with "should always" in answer choice (B).

Hope that helps!

[Kelly R]

Hi PS,

Would it also have been fair to eliminate Answers (B) and (C) on the grounds that they directly refer to "strict constructionists," which are only mentioned explicitly in passage A? Though it's clear that the author of Passage B is an advocate of strict constructionism, he/she never explicitly discusses strict constructionism. Given that this is a Point of Agreement question that requires both authors to directly address the claims provided by the answer choices, I eliminated B and C (both because Passage B doesn't ever directly refer to strict constructionism, and because the language seemed a bit too qualified/absolute in this answer). Is it permissible, though, to attribute the ideas of strict constructionism to Passage B even though this was never directly discussed? Thanks.

[Adam Tyson]

I think that is one good reason to eliminate both of those answers, Kelly! Another is that they are both stronger than the evidence in passage A would support. Good work!