PrepTest 156, Section 3, Question 3
Two competing demands we make of the law(445 more words not shown)
The passage most strongly supports(13 more words not shown)
- AIt tends to(14 more words not shown)
- BIt may satisfy(13 more words not shown)
- CIt produces substantive(12 more words not shown)
- DIts tension with(10 more words not shown)
- EIt can be(11 more words not shown)
Reading the passage
Formalism offers rational, consistent rules. The criticism is that those qualities can coexist with insensitivity to people's circumstances. So a system may meet the demand for objective reasoning without meeting the separate demand for fair outcomes in actual cases.
Working the answers
- A
No criticism of excessively detailed language is made. The opening describes a universal ordering principle; it doesn't say the problem is too much detail and too few broad principles.
- BCorrect
The second paragraph explicitly describes extreme formalism as neutral and unprejudiced yet insensitive to social context. That is the distinction this answer captures: objective application can still fail to connect to social reality.
- C
This removes the very problem the author emphasizes. Neutrality and lack of prejudice do not, by themselves, produce substantive justice. The author says even an approach with those qualities can miss what makes an outcome fair.
- D
The conflict isn't attributed to two different techniques of deductive reasoning. It concerns consistent rules and attention to social circumstances. D introduces a new explanation for the tension.
- E
This proposes solving the problem by putting recognition of inequality into formal rules. The author doesn't endorse that solution; the final paragraph says universal rules cannot guarantee substantive justice under social inequality. A possible proposal someone else might make isn't a view supported by this argument.
More Detail questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Detail questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.