PrepTest 127, Section 2, Question 22
The writing styles in works of high literary(62 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(13 more words not shown)
- AIt is not(18 more words not shown)
- BUnlike literary works,(10 more words not shown)
- CThe law is(9 more words not shown)
- DJudges spend much(12 more words not shown)
- EJudicial decisions issued(25 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
'Not well suited to the avoidance of misinterpretation' is a complicated way to say that a style may be easy to misinterpret. Literary quality can involve expressive language with room for interpretation. That doesn't make the writing bad; it may serve a different purpose from a straightforward instruction.
Judicial decisions primarily determine law, so we can understand why avoiding misinterpretation would matter. Someone needs to know what the decision actually establishes. The passage uses that purpose to explain why such decisions rarely display high literary quality.
Then we get the apparent exception: it is not uncommon for dissenting opinions to contain high-quality literary writing. My first thought is that their purpose differs. Perhaps the dissent isn't doing the same work of determining the law, so it doesn't face the same pressure to sacrifice literary style for precision.
What we’re looking for
We need a fact that explains this difference. Focus on dissenting opinions versus the decisions that determine law. A general fact about judges or legal writing won't help unless it shows why the two kinds of writing can reasonably differ.
Working the answers
- A
More than one judge influencing a dissent's wording doesn't tell us why the result would be more literary. We would need a further connection between multiple contributors and the style, as well as a reason that connection distinguishes dissents from other judicial writing.
- B
Technical terminology is a general feature of legal opinions in this answer. It doesn't explain why dissenting opinions are more likely to show literary quality than other judicial writing. The needed distinction is within legal opinions, not just between legal and literary works.
- CCorrect
If dissenting opinions do not determine law to any great extent, the reason for prioritizing unambiguous legal direction applies less strongly to them. That makes room for a more literary style and explains why they can differ from decisions whose primary function is determining law.
We don't have to claim that dissents never matter or that clarity is irrelevant to them. The answer is qualified: they do not determine law to any great extent. That reduced role is enough to help explain the different writing style.
- D
Judges' reading habits don't explain the contrast between kinds of opinions they write. Spending more time with judicial decisions could be true whether their dissents were literary or plain. We still need to know why a dissent differs.
- E
This compares decisions by panels with decisions by individual judges. The puzzle compares dissenting opinions with judicial decisions generally. A difference in readership between panel and single-judge cases doesn't establish a reason for the dissent's literary style.
More Paradox questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Paradox questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.