PrepTest 149, Section 4, Question 19
After a judge has made the first ruling(55 more words not shown)
Of the rulings described below,(10 more words not shown)
- AJudge Swoboda is(33 more words not shown)
- BJudge Valenzuela decides,(56 more words not shown)
- CJudge Levinsky sets(52 more words not shown)
- DJudge Watanabe must(41 more words not shown)
- EJudge Balila rules(35 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
First ask whether there is a precedent. That determines which rule to use.
If there is one, judges must follow it when it doesn't conflict with society's basic moral values. Their personal preference isn't a substitute for the earlier ruling. The passage doesn't spell out what judges should do in every case where a precedent conflicts with those values.
What we’re looking for
Without a precedent, judges may use their own legal views, but only if those views don't contradict widespread public opinion. Notice the two different standards: society's basic moral values in the first situation, widespread public opinion in the second. For the matching ruling, we need to identify the situation and then check its condition.
Working the answers
- A
There is no precedent, so Swoboda may use his own legal views only if they don't contradict widespread public opinion. They do: his view conflicts with what most people believe. His ruling therefore fails the condition for using his own views.
- B
Again, there is no precedent. The public overwhelmingly supports trying children twelve and older as adults, while Valenzuela rules against it according to his own views. His personal moral objection doesn't remove the second rule's restriction. The ruling conflicts with the stated public opinion.
- C
This time a relevant precedent exists. Wilson follows his own legal views instead, and the answer supplies no reason to treat the precedent as contrary to society's basic moral values. Indeed, Wilson doesn't believe it conflicts with those values. His disagreement with the ruling isn't, on its own, the condition that would remove the stated duty to follow it.
- DCorrect
There is no precedent, and there is no widespread public opinion for Watanabe's view to contradict. That satisfies the conditions for ruling according to her own legal view. We don't need a separate rule favoring defendants or opposing them; the principle permits her to use her legal view in this situation.
- E
Relevant precedents exist, and they all conform to society's basic moral values. The first rule therefore requires following them. Balila's own views lead her to a contrary ruling, which is exactly what the rule does not permit under these circumstances.
More Must Be True questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Must Be True questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.