#14 - Global Reference, Must Be True

[Administrator]

Please post your questions below!

[frk215]

Hello! I was wondering why the correct answer to this would not be C. I understand why B is correct but I got stuck during the section trying to eliminate C.

In passage A, the relationship between judicial candor and institutional legitimacy is clearly mentioned: "Accordingly, proponents of greater candor in the courts have argued, for example, that transparent decision making provides better guidance to lower courts and litigants, or that it strengthens the institutional legitimacy of the courts."

In passage B, the following statement, "Moreover, lack of candor is likely to be detectable, and its detection would only serve to increase public cynicism about the judicial system." made me think that increased public cynicism could translate into decreased institutional legitimacy, and therefore it would apply in answer choice C.

Does this not work because with this interpretation of passage B, we might be able to answer whether or not institutional legitimacy is helped or hurt by a lack of judicial candor, but we won't be able to tell whether it is required?

Thank you for the help!

[KelseyWoods]

Hi frk215!

You're on the right track here but I'd actually say that passage B states that judicial candor is required for the institutional legitimacy of the courts and it's passage A that doesn't necessarily describe judicial candor as a requirement for institutional legitimacy.

Check out the sentence in passage B that's just before the one you quoted: "In a sense, candor is an essential prerequisite of all other restraints on abuse of judicial power, for the limitations imposed by constitutions, statutes, and precedents count for little if judges feel free to believe one thing and say another." If passage B author thinks candor is an "essential prerequisite" for all other restraints on abuse of judicial power, then they seem to be saying that judicial candor is required for the institutional legitimacy of the courts.

You pulled out the relevant quote from passage A, but look at the wording a little more carefully. It states that judicial candor "strengthens the institutional legitimacy of the courts." Strengthening the institutional legitimacy of the courts is not the same as being required (or necessary) for the institutional legitimacy of the courts. (Think about the differences between what you're looking for in the answer choices for Strengthen vs. Assumption questions!) So saying that judicial candor is "required" (or not) is too strong to be supported by passage A.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[Zihuatanejo]

I'm having a difficult time understanding why B is the right answer, since it seems that Passage A is concerned with explaining how one can defend judicial candor, not whether or not judicial candor is justified. Can you please help me understand what I might be misinterpreting?

Thank you!

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi Zihuatanejo,

Passage A starts out by introducing the issue almost identical to the one posed in answer choice (B). Legal theorists are debating the need for judicial sincerity in opinions. The paragraph goes on to give some reasons to think that judicial candor might not be a requirement. The second two paragraphs, however, give us good reasons to believe that judicial sincerity is important, either for practical reasons or as a separate moral imperative to tell the truth. It's almost all concerned with the issue of if judicial sincerity is required. It's a key theme in each paragraph in Passage A.

It isn't a question then, of justified or not. It's just as the answer choice states--Are judges required to believe what they say?

Hope that helps

[SGD2021]

Hello, can someone please explain why E is incorrect? It seems costs are addressed in the first para of passage A (honesty=candor) and costs are also kind of mentioned in the first sentences of the last paragraph of Passage B.

[Adam Tyson]

Costs may be mentioned in passage B, SGD, but the passage is not concerned with answering the question posed in that answer choice. And passage A never addresses the issue of costs vs benefits at all.

But even if we take the meaning of these two passages and stretch them to say that they both "kind of" talk about this issue in at least some way, answer E would still be incorrect because it is not the BEST answer. Answer B is far better, and not only because it doesn't need any help from us to be correct. Our prephrase should have been virtually identical to answer B, and both passages clearly address this question.

Always pick the best answer! And when an answer needs your help to make it work - when it only "kind of" does the job - there's probably a better answer than that one.

[mikeross1234]

It isn't a question then, of justified or not. It's just as the answer choice states--Are judges required to believe what they say?

Hi Rachel. Please give me some insight on how I viewed this answer choice. I believed that "Most Judges believe what they say in their opinions" meant that the authors were trying to answer if a certain numerical value of judges actually used judicial candor or not. The answer choice does not infer anything about whether they are required to believe or not does it? It just says if they do it or not.

[Jonathan Evans]

Hey Mike!

The answer choice in question states "must judges believe what they say in their opinions?" not "most."

Absolutely an easy thing to misread! I make slight errors like this all the time and have worked out a methodical system of double checking question stems and answer choices to make sure I'm (1) answering the question that's being asked and (2) am not overlooking any critical words or concepts in the answer choices I select.

I hope this helps!