#18 - Specific Reference, Must Be True, Purpose/Function

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

The correct answer choice is (A).

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

Answer choice (B):

Answer choice (C):

Answer choice (D):

Answer choice (E):

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

[Dustin Batchelor]

Hi there, I disregarded "A" pretty quickly simply because I saw addressing the consequences of the two schools of thought was new. Extreme ideas were suggested but I never read of the consequences of such views. The dry reporting tone of the author also seemed too neutral to proceed to describe the consequences. The language of "bemused themselves" in the last paragraph put in my head the idea of a jocular tone on behalf of the legal scholars. I was torn between choices D and E because they gave the author a more neutral position. I decided that extreme examples are still technically not wrong, and so I chose E. I figured extreme examples are "only partially correct" because they just take the idea too far.
Thank you tutors for everything you do. Can you help me out?

[katehos]

Hi Dustin, thank you for your question!

Evidence of the consequences of each extreme view in the last paragraph can be found in the sentences beginning with "on the one hand" and "on the other hand". In these lines, we can find examples of what formal reasoning had "led to" as well as what substantive reasoning has "resulted in", which are the consequences (or effects) of the extreme interpretations. Colloquially, the word consequences is oftentimes used in a negative context, but here, it may be useful to consider how the word on its own does not always imply negative effects! With this in mind, we can see how the final paragraph fits nicely within answer choice (A), as the last paragraph presents the impact of two extreme types of legal reasoning.

Answer choices (D) and (E), on the other hand, aren't entirely provable by the text of the last paragraph. If we look at answer choice (D), we see that this answer discusses "how characterizations..." "...can become convoluted and inaccurate." But if we look to the last paragraph, there's no discussion of how characterizations of legal reasoning become inaccurate. A similar issue presents itself with answer choice (E)'s mention of "only partially correct." While it may be the case that the author doesn't believe extreme interpretations to be fully accurate, such a belief is not contained within the last paragraph. The author does not discuss any partially correct or incorrect components of each type of legal reasoning, nor does the author indicate that the legal scholars are incorrect in their extreme examples. So, we can eliminate both of these!

I hope this helps!
Kate

[zoezoe6021]

Hi Kate,

I am still confused about why (D) is incorrect. Could you please explain it further? Thank you.

You stated that (D) is incorrect because the last paragraph does not discuss how characterizations of legal reasoning become inaccurate. In line 55, however, it states"free-wheeling substantive reasoning in the United States has resulted in statutory interpretations so liberal that the tests of some statutes have been ignored altogether".

I interpret this sentence as people disregarding the text of certain laws, which leads to inaccurate legal reasoning. That matches (D).

[Dana D]

Hey Zoe Zoe,

Picking up where Kate left off - the US legal reason wouldn't be 'inaccurate' just because some statues are ignored. Rather, the author is implying that the US sometimes seems to treat the law more like a series of guidelines that strict rules, as is the case in the UK. For example, judges can make sentencing decisions that contradict the legal guidelines, and they make those decisions based on their own legal reasoning. They believe their reasoning is sound, but the fact remains that they are liberally interpreting the law to allow themselves this freedom of discretion.

Another thing to look at is that we are asked to describe the function of the entire last paragraph - that means not just the portion which discusses the US, but also the first half which talks about England. There is nothing in that half which indicates English legal reasoning is convoluted or inaccurate, so we couldn't say that the entire paragraph is suggesting that both English and US reasoning can become convoluted or inaccurate.

Does that make sense?