#14 - Must Be True, Purpose

[allisonellen7]

Hi there! I am confused as to why this passage would be described as explaining a "paradoxical situation?" Thanks in advance!

[Andrew Ash]

Hi Allison,

Good to hear from you again!

On the LSAT, a "paradox" generally means two facts that don't agree with each other, creating a surprising discrepancy (just like in Resolve the Paradox questions). In this passage, we have two facts that don't match each other: common law is an essential part of legal education and practice, but it's been completely ignored by legal theory (or jurisprudence).

So "paradox" does describe the situation. As you've pointed out, though, it's a surprising word choice, and probably didn't match your prephrase. This is a common pattern in difficult Reading Comprehension questions (and at 34% correct, this is about as difficult as it gets): the correct answer choice has the right idea, but expresses it in a confusing way. How can we be sure that we've chosen the right answer in a case like this?

Process of elimination is what's most helpful here. This is a descriptive passage, and the author doesn't express any strong opinions. That eliminates answer choices (C) ("evaluate"), (D) ("suggest"), and (E) ("advocate", "criticize"). And the author is describing a current academic situation, not the "history of an idea," which eliminates answer choice (B). So that leaves us with answer choice (A), which contains some strange wording, but has the right idea at its core.

I hope that helps!

Best,
Andrew

[allisonellen7]

That helps a lot! Thank you so much!

[kcho10]

Hi,

I was a little unsure about why (D) is incorrect, and I'm not sure if I fully understand the general structure of the passage. Are British law and the academic study of jurisprudence related, or are they separate fields? I originally thought they were two different approaches to law, but answer choice (A) made me question that.

Also, is (D) incorrect because the author only suggests that jurisprudence overlooks certain things, and doesn't actually say how the law should be studied?
Also, are the topics discussed (British law and jurisprudence) theories? Please let me know in more detail why (D) is incorrect. Thank you!

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi kcho,

Jurisprudence = the study or theory of law. The academic study of British law is essentially the same thing as the academic study of British jurisprudence.

Here, D is incorrect because there is no contrasting theories of past eras with theories of today. We don't really know much about theories of past eras at all; we just know about the way that law is studied today and how today's law has been formed. Does that help?

[kcho10]

Hi kcho,

Jurisprudence = the study or theory of law. The academic study of British law is essentially the same thing as the academic study of British jurisprudence.

Here, D is incorrect because there is no contrasting theories of past eras with theories of today. We don't really know much about theories of past eras at all; we just know about the way that law is studied today and how today's law has been formed. Does that help?

Yes, it helps out a lot! Thank you

[Tajadas]

Hi, I don't understand Andrew's reasoning above for what "paradox" is referring to in answer choice A. My understanding of the passage is not "common law is an essential part of legal education and practice, but it's been completely ignored by legal theory (or jurisprudence)". Rather, my understanding is more along the lines of "common law is an essential part of legal education and practice, but it is not properly understood because academic study de-emphasizes history in favor of portraying a unitary logical system". So it's not that common law has been ignored as much as it's been taught in a non-critical way by ignoring its history.

I don't see much in the way of "paradox" in my interpretation, so I'd appreciate knowing how Andrew recognized that common law has been completely ignored by legal theory. Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

You could say that the paradox here is that common law, in the author's view and that of Peter Goodrich, is "a constantly evolving phenomenon rooted in history," but it is treated by academics more as "a unified system of rules that can be studied at any given moment in time as a logical whole." The author, and Goodrich, see these two idea as being in conflict.

I agree with Andrew's suggestion that the best approach to this set of answers is through process of elimination. I didn't initially like the choice of "paradox" in answer A, because I saw it less as a paradox and more as just a problem. However, knowing that on the LSAT that term is often used somewhat loosely to describe any conflicting ideas, I kept it as a contender and hoped for a better answer choice. Finding that the rest were all substantially worse for various reasons, I ended up forced to select A despite my initial reservations, as you should. Don't reject answers on the grounds that they are imperfect, because our goal is only to find the best answer of the ones provided. That's a process of comparison, not absolutism, so a "bad" answer can still be the credited response. (Not suggesting that this answer is "bad," just that it wasn't ideal.)