#11 - 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 (C)

This Author’s Perspective question asks what the author thinks about the current means of addressing judicial bias in some jurisdictions—allowing parties other than the judge to allege potential for bias. In the second paragraph, the author discusses a central problem with this approach: When the rules focus on appearances, this makes is more likely that sources of actual bias may be overlooked by observers or even by the judges themselves.

Answer choice (A): This is an Opposite answer, as the rules governing the current approach to recusal provide “vague guidance at best” (line 12). The rules are certainly not “rigid.”

Answer choice (B): The author does not state that such statutes are incompatible with a requirement that judges make their reasoning transparent, nor that this is a weakness associated with such statutes. The problem with rules focusing on the appearance of bias may cause people to overlook sources of real bias on the part of presiding judges.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. As discussed above, the author believes that such appearance-focused rules can cause observers to overlook sources of actual bias on the part of the judge (lines 22-24).

Answer choice (D): The author does not claim that any conflict exists between the referenced statutes and judges’ professional codes of conduct.

Answer choice (E): The author does not discuss the likelihood that 3rd party requests for recusals would be granted. This choice fails the Fact Test and should be eliminated from contention.

[OneSeventy2019]

PowerScore,

I struggled with this question: selected answer choice B and even had eliminated choice C as a contender in my first preview of the answer choices.. my only 'defense' is that paragraph 4 seemed to give the impression that the author might not be too concerned about actual biases, so as long as their reasoning can be articulated.

Obviously, all LSAT writers are omniscient demigods that can never be incorrect about anything ever. That being said, is there some credence to my argument that choice C might be a bit contradictory to paragraph 4? What am I missing here?

Thanks

[Adam Tyson]

I think the thing you might be missing, OneSeventy2019, is that the passage is about replacing the current system, in which judges may be asked to recuse themselves because of the appearance of bias, with a system based on judges having to explain their legal reasoning. Currently, it looks like judges do NOT have to explain themselves, and that's where the author has a problem. He would be okay with some actual bias as long as the judge articulated reasons that even a non-biased judge might agree with.

The question is asking about a perceived problem with the current system, and that's where answer C comes in. Your view about the author not being too concerned would be correct IF we lived in a world where judges explained their reasons, but we don't live in that world. The author wants us to go there, because the current system is flawed. Answer C describes one of those flaws.

[baxter9]

Hi,

I was initially attracted to answer C but upon returning to the passage noted this pair of sentences: "Therefore, the best way to address concerns about judicial impartiality is to require judges to make their reasoning transparent. Accordingly, we should eliminate disqualification motions alleging bias, whether actual or apparent."

Particularly given the use of the word "accordingly", these statements seem to validate answer choice B. It seems to me that the author, in advocating for a requirement for judges to make their reasoning transparent, believes that the elimination of disqualification motions alleging bias is necessary for the implementation of that requirement to be effective, as these two forces are at odds ("incompatible").

I'm not sure what I'm missing here. Can you help me figure out why this is wrong? Thanks!

[KelseyWoods]

Hi baxter9!

This question is asking us what the author would consider to be a weakness of statutes that allow parties to court proceedings to request disqualification of judges for bias. The author isn't saying that the weakness of those statutes is that they conflict with the idea of transparent reasoning. Instead, the author is saying that because disqualification motions are weak, we need to replace them with transparent reasoning.

The real description of the weakness of disqualification motions comes from the 1st and 2nd paragraphs. Some specific lines to look at: Lines 1-3 "The current approach to recusal and disqualification of judges heavily emphasizes appearance-based analysis." Lines 22-24 "Focusing on appearances may cause sources of actual bias that are not apparent to outside observers, or even to judges themselves, to be overlooked." So basically, the weakness/problem with disqualification motions is that they may fail to eliminate actual bias, as state in answer choice (C).

"Accordingly" basically just means that since we're going to have transparent reasoning instead, we can go ahead and get rid of these disqualification motions that were already weak to begin with. But the reason the disqualification motions are weak is not that they conflict with transparent reasoning, but rather that they don't actually eliminate bias...which is why we need transparent reasoning to fix that weakness!

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[baxter9]

Ah, yes I see now. This is very helpful. Thank you!