#16 - Concept Reference, Must Be True

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

The correct answer choice is (E).

Answer choice (A):

Answer choice (B):

Answer choice (C):

Answer choice (D):

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice.


This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!

[Khodi7531]

So I was between A and E on this for a long time.


For some reason, I had a strong gut feeling about A. However, with unlimited time, A I found only half supported. (38-41) has support for the first portion, but "the decision is" I couldn't find support for.

I was reading E as the holding JUSTIFIES a decision...at first like this: From the decision...comes this holding. Kind of like decision > holding. So I thought it was very provable. (I made a diagram to help me think better that went Dec>holding>legal reasoning + binding - is that right?)

But I just felt I may have been overthinking and still chose A because it felt right. It's a stupid reason to chose it and easier said than done to "not do it" but it's really tough to avoid it when you've been screwed so many times from similar feelings. Any thoughts?

[Adam Tyson]

I think you may be reading a little too much into those lines about subsequent judges, Khodi7531. I see no support there for the idea that the holding is not commonly considered binding, but only that subsequent judges will not be bound by the prior judge's perceptions.

Let me bounce this back to you and ask, what was your prephrase for this question? Mine was "the decision is one of two components of the holding" (as explained in lines 27-31). That sets me onto a path of looking for an answer that shows that relationship, with the holding including the decision and also other stuff (the essential grounds, aka the justification for the decision). That prephrase made answer A a lot easier to dismiss, and answer E much more obvious in my mind. Check your prephrase, and see if that is where you may have gone astray in selecting your answer!

[Khodi7531]

So you're saying A was wrong because "commonly" has a degree issue?

My prephase of this was loosley based around the thought of as the rules and precedent (holding) that ultimately led to the outcome (decision). Simply put.... I also knew that lines 26-30ish would hold the answer. But I know that prephases are just my understanding and I don't always just look for what I thought. Because what if I missed a detail? Or it's not exact - which is 99 percent of the time. So I went through the answers and they all had good parts of it. But when I looked deeper with more time, I got to A and E.

However, the holding to not be considering commonly binding is not that far of a stretch. I feel like there are so many RC answers that "allow you to make that inference". It's spoken about throughout the last paragraph of the passage. But it's also all over the place.

But wait... Line 40 states, "decisions are not bound by the original judges perception" ....and then in line 28 it says "holdings are what subsequent judges are bound by...."
And the "decision" being more binding can be found on line 25.


Did I just get the whole thing reversed? Can I have eliminated A with all those I stated or am I still not in the ball park

[Adam Tyson]

"Commonly" isn't the problem with that answer, Khodi. The problem is that there is no evidence that the holding is ever anything BUT binding! We don't know if judges can EVER disregard a prior holding! What they can do is interpret that holding based on their own perception of what it means, rather than being bound by what the prior judge perceived it to mean, or what that prior judge thought and felt as he came up with that holding.

I think you may be interpreting the passage a little differently than was intended. The holding doesn't lead to the decision, but rather it incorporates the decision, along with the essential grounds for that decision. In other words, "here's what I decided" is the decision, "here's why I decided it" is the essential grounds, and those two combine to form the holding.

Where do perceptions fit into the holding? They might not, if the judge doesn't articulate them. What the judge said is what counts. What he thought, what he felt, and everything else that he left unsaid is not binding on anyone else who may think, feel, or perceive things differently. Subsequent judges are bound by the words in the holding, but not by the intangible things that led the prior judge to choose those words.

Avoid making leaps and assumptions, and rely solely on the text to find your support, khodi! That's the goal in RC, to use the evidence in the text to prove your answers are the best ones. Bringing in anything else misses the point and breaks the rules!

Stay focused on the text, pay attention to every word, and you'll do fine. Good luck!

[kevin.hussain24]

Hello,
Why is E right I dont understand how the holding justifys the decision? Can you please explain?
Thank you
Kevin H

[Adam Tyson]

Absolutely, Kevin! Check out my explanation earlier in this thread, where I discussed forming a prephrase based on the text of the passage:

Mine was "the decision is one of two components of the holding" (as explained in lines 27-31). That sets me onto a path of looking for an answer that shows that relationship, with the holding including the decision and also other stuff (the essential grounds, aka the justification for the decision).

It's in those lines of the passage that we learned that the holding has two parts - the decision, and the justification for that decision. That's answer E! The holding both "sets forth" (states explicitly) the decision, and "justifies" (provides the legal reasons for) that decision. Here's an example:

Holding: The Motion to Amend the Complaint is denied (decision) because it was filed after the deadline for such filings and accepting it at this late date would constitute unfair surprise and overly burden the Defendants (the justification).

[sparrrkk_]

Hi,

I just wanted to review my reasoning for why A is wrong and E is right, to make sure I'm thinking this through correctly.
So, A is wrong because the holding includes both the decision and the essential grounds for it. The essential grounds are stated in the passage to be "what subsequent judges are bound by". Since these essential grounds are a part of the holding, the holding is considered binding on subsequent judges. This is especially so, considering that the passage states that subsequent judges are "unlikely to dispute the decision itself".
I think I'm getting confused on how the essential grounds for the decision in the holding is different from the original judge's perception of what was essential to the decision. Does this mean that these reasons still need to be considered (bound) but subsequent judges can place them in the dicta instead of the holding? ("later judges have tremendous leeway in being able to redefine the holding and the dicta in a precendential case.")
I chose E because it more accurately reflected the relationship, but I want to make sure my reasoning for why A is wrong is correct.
Thanks!

[Robert Carroll]

spark,

Note that, in the sentence starting at line 42, the author does not claim that subsequent judges simply ignore what the original judge said. Instead, they "redefine" what counts as holding vs dicta. If the "holding" were not considered to restrain subsequent judges, they could just ignore it. Instead, they try to reframe the earlier decision in a way that they can still claim to be bound by the "holding" (though perhaps defined in a way the original judge would not have approved of). So the holding IS considered binding - its constraint has to be evaded by reinterpretation, not merely ignored. So it's fair to say that answer choice (A) is the opposite of the truth about what a "holding" does for subsequent judges.

Robert Carroll