#20 - Specific Reference, Must Be True, Organization

[SherryZ]

Hi again, thank you for your time!

Dec 1999 LSAT Sec 3 LR, Q20:

I chose C but the correct answer is A. I did not see "its plausibility is investigated", therefore I did not choose A. Could you explain why A is right and C is wrong??

Thank you very much! Have a nice day!

---Sherry

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi Sherry,

In the last paragraph, the author doesn't give any arguments for the CLS charge; rather, that claim is merely identified, and then critically examined. Finally, a new position isn't offered to reconcile the two views; rather, Meyerson's view is presented as primary. Therefore, A is correct; the criticism identified is the charge of the CLS scholars, and the examination of its plausibility is Meyerson's argument.

Have a great night!

[dazeigler1523]

Hi there,

I was between A, B, and C here.

I decided not C because I did not see "a new position is offered to reconcile them" in the last paragraph.

So, I was really down to just A and B.

I chose B thinking that the word "advanced" meant something along the lines of identified or presented, but where the author does not take a stance on either view. I thought the author was viewpoint neutral in this paragraph.

Could you explain why A is correct here? I understand the "criticism is identified" portion - that is obviously stated (it also seems rather synonymous with "two different arguments made by opponents" in B). I suppose my main question is why is the language of "its plausibility is investigated" more author viewpoint neutral than "advanced?"

Thank you!

[Brook Miscoski]

daz,

The problem with (B) is that the author does not introduce two opponents of a single viewpoint. He explains two opposing viewpoints.

(A) is right because the author introduces a criticism of Meyerson and explains Meyerson's response. Alternatively, the author introduces Meyerson's last criticism of CLS and then explains the argument between Meyerson and CLS about that critique. Either way, it describes the last paragraph.

[ashpine17]

So this is beyond the scope of the question but it is still about the last paragraph. What is the purpose of the author bringing up M's disagreement with CLS proponents about what it means to endorse the rules of the game? And what does it mean that "such considerations" may be part of the game?

[Robert Carroll]

ashpine,

The author is thereby showing how Meyerson would defend her criticism against an attack on it that proponents of CLS could mount.

"Such considerations" are the considerations mentioned just before that: purpose, policy, and value.

Robert Carroll

[lsatquestions]

Hi Robert, I picked the correct answer by eliminating the other choices, but I was thrown off by 'plausibility' in A. Can you explain how the plausibility of Meyerson's criticism is investigated in the last paragraph?

[Robert Carroll]

lsatquestions,

There are two possible interpretations of the last paragraph:

1. CLS criticizes legal formalism. Meyerson evaluates that criticism, striking back at it by undercutting it basis.

2. Meyerson criticizes CLS. The paragraph outlines how well her criticism works.

I think "plausibility" works in either case - either Meyerson is investigating the plausibility of CLS, finding it wanting, or the paragraph is investigating the plausibility of Meyerson's criticism, finding it to have at least a reasonable basis. I actually strongly think that interpretation #2 is the correct one - the paragraph reports Meyerson's views more than taking on CLS itself, which seems to match answer choice (A) much better. But I don't think we have to choose between interpretations to prove answer choice (A) correct here.

Robert Carroll