- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 200
- Joined: Oct 17, 2012
- Mon May 06, 2013 6:18 pm
#9305
Hi Voodoochild,
I hope it may help to clarify that as Steve essentially indicates, it's not necessarily useful to view judges themselves as strictly or consistently "institutional authority". Judges are actors within institutions, who may draw on two types of authority, intellectual or institutional. They potentially have access to both. When a judge challenges precedent, s/he is not being or exercising "institutional authority", s/he is doing so based on intellectual authority.
Therefore answer choices D & E, both specifying that institutional authority is not used to challenge institutional beliefs are relatively consistent with what the author appears to believe. Legal systems definitely are examples of institutional authority, and the author argues, may also contain intellectual authority. But within a legal proceeding (for instance, a judge ruling or reasoning), what happens may be an intellectual exercise of authority that actually challenges the institution. However in that case, it is (supposedly) not institutional authority that is being used.
Beyond that, I'm guessing that what may bother or confuse you about this passage is the plausibility of the reasoning itself -- meaning you may disagree with the idea that a judge, who is clearly part of an institution, can ever not be considered to be using "institutional authority", when for instance, challenging a precedent. But remember, the question stem what the author would be least likely to believe, so even if you find the argument flawed or contradictory, the pathway to the right answer choice here is not about critiquing that flaw, but about correctly identifying where the author is coming from.
Consider this statement: "a judge’s merely decide a case a certain way becoming a basis for deciding later cases (45) the same way -- a pure example of institutional authority." Here the author certainly appears to be suggesting that institutional authority is very strictly consistent with whatever the rule of law dictates -- meaning it will not challenge itself, which is consistent with the second parts of answer choices D & E.
hope this helps!
Beth
I hope it may help to clarify that as Steve essentially indicates, it's not necessarily useful to view judges themselves as strictly or consistently "institutional authority". Judges are actors within institutions, who may draw on two types of authority, intellectual or institutional. They potentially have access to both. When a judge challenges precedent, s/he is not being or exercising "institutional authority", s/he is doing so based on intellectual authority.
Therefore answer choices D & E, both specifying that institutional authority is not used to challenge institutional beliefs are relatively consistent with what the author appears to believe. Legal systems definitely are examples of institutional authority, and the author argues, may also contain intellectual authority. But within a legal proceeding (for instance, a judge ruling or reasoning), what happens may be an intellectual exercise of authority that actually challenges the institution. However in that case, it is (supposedly) not institutional authority that is being used.
Beyond that, I'm guessing that what may bother or confuse you about this passage is the plausibility of the reasoning itself -- meaning you may disagree with the idea that a judge, who is clearly part of an institution, can ever not be considered to be using "institutional authority", when for instance, challenging a precedent. But remember, the question stem what the author would be least likely to believe, so even if you find the argument flawed or contradictory, the pathway to the right answer choice here is not about critiquing that flaw, but about correctly identifying where the author is coming from.
Consider this statement: "a judge’s merely decide a case a certain way becoming a basis for deciding later cases (45) the same way -- a pure example of institutional authority." Here the author certainly appears to be suggesting that institutional authority is very strictly consistent with whatever the rule of law dictates -- meaning it will not challenge itself, which is consistent with the second parts of answer choices D & E.
hope this helps!
Beth