PrepTest 110, Section 4, Question 16
Philosopher Denise Meyerson views the Critical Legal Studies(440 more words not shown)
The primary purpose of the(10 more words not shown)
- Aprovide an example(8 more words not shown)
- Bdemonstrate a point(5 more words not shown)
- Cemphasize the relative(4 more words not shown)
- Dcontrast two situations(4 more words not shown)
- Edismiss an idea(5 more words not shown)
Reading the passage
I can tell you who won the stealing contest without thinking anyone should have played it. That's the distinction the game makes clear: identifying the result under a rule isn't the same as approving of the rule.
What we’re looking for
Meyerson uses that example to challenge the supposed connection between legal formalism and moral authority. How does the game help her make that point?
Working the answers
- A
This is an imagined game, not a report of how a principle was applied on some previous occasion.
- BCorrect
It's an analogy: identifying the game's winner without endorsing its rules illustrates how someone could identify a legal solution without endorsing the law's moral authority. The situations differ, but that relationship matches.
- C
We aren't comparing the importance of games with the importance of law. The game illustrates a distinction about rules and approval.
- D
Meyerson relies on a similarity, not exaggerated differences. A CLS scholar later objects that legal cases are unlike games, but that isn't why she introduced the example.
- E
Theft is objectionable, which makes this tempting. But she isn't dismissing the CLS claim because it's morally reprehensible. She is showing that rules can give a clear result even when we disapprove of them. The example challenges a claimed connection; it doesn't substitute condemnation for an argument.
More Purpose of Claim questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Purpose of Claim questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.