Although the legal systems of England and the United States are superficially similar, they differ profoundly in their approaches to and uses of legal reasons: substantive reasons in the United States, whereas in England the reverse is true. This distinction reflects a difference in the visions of law that prevail in the two counties. In England the law has traditionally been viewed as a system of rules; the United States favors a vision of law as an outward expression of the community’s sense of right and justice.

Substantive reasons, as applied to law, are based on moral, economic, political, and other considerations. These reasons are found both “in the law” and “outside the law,” so to speak. Substantive reasons inform (to give character or essence to “the principles which inform modern teaching”) the content of a large part of the law: constitutions, statutes, contracts, verdicts, and the like. Consider, for example, a statute providing (to make a proviso or stipulation) that “no vehicles shall be taken into public parks”. Suppose that no specific rationales or purposes were explicitly written into this statute, but that it was clear (from its legislative history) that the substantive purpose of the statute was to ensure quiet and safety in the park. Now suppose that a veterans’ group mounts a World War II jeep (in running order but without a battery) as a war memorial on a concrete slab in the park, and charges are brought against its members. Most judges in the United States would find the defendants not guilty because what they did had no adverse effect on park quiet and safety.

Formal reasons are different in that they frequently prevent substantive reasons from coming into play, even when substantive reasons are explicitly incorporated into the law at hand. For example, when a document fails to comply with stipulated requirements, the court may render the document legally ineffective. A will requiring written witness may be declared null and void and therefore, unenforceable for the formal reason that the requirement was not observed. Once the legal rule—that a will is invalid for lack of proper witnessing—has been clearly established, and the legality of the rule is not in question, application of that rule precludes from consideration substantive arguments in favor of the will’s validity or enforcement.

Legal scholars in England and the United States have long bemused themselves with extreme examples of formal and substantive reasoning. On the one hand, formal reasoning in England has led to wooden interpretations of statutes and an unwillingness to develop the common law through judicial activism. On the other hand, freewheeling substantive reasoning in the United States has resulted in statutory interpretations so liberal that the texts of some statutes have been ignored altogether.

1. Which one of the following best describes the content of the passage as a whole?

(A) an analysis of similarities and differences between the legal systems of England and the United States
(B) a reevaluation of two legal systems with the use of examples
(C) a contrast between the types of reasons embodied in the United States and England legal systems
(D) an explanation of how two distinct visions of the law shaped the development of legal reasoning
(E) a presentation of two types of legal reasons that shows the characteristics they have in common


2. It can be inferred from the passage that English judges would be likely to find the veterans’ group discussed in the second paragraph guilty of violating the statute because

(A) not to do so would encourage others to act as the group did
(B) not to do so would be to violate the substantive reasons underlying the law
(C) the veterans failed to comply with the substantive purpose of the statute
(D) the veterans failed to demonstrate that their activities had no adverse effect on the public
(E) the veterans failed to comply with the stipulated requirements of the statute


3. From the discussion of wills in the third paragraph it can be inferred that substantive arguments as to the validity of a will might be considered under which one of the following circumstances?

(A) The legal rule requiring that a will be witnessed in writing does not stipulate the format of the will.
(B) The legal rule requiring that a will be witnessed stipulates that the will must be witnessed in writing by two people.
(C) The legal rule requiring that a will be witnessed in writing stipulates that the witnessing must be done in the presence of a judge.
(D) A judge rules that the law requires a will to be witnessed in writing regardless of extenuating circumstances
(E) A judge rules that the law can be interpreted to allow for a verbal witness to a will in a case involving a medical emergency.


4. The author of the passage makes use of all of the following in presenting the discussion of the English and the United States legal systems EXCEPT

(A) comparison and contrast
(B) generalization
(C) explication of term
(D) a chronology of historical developments
(E) a hypothetical case


5. Which one of the following best describes the function of the last paragraph of the passage?

(A) It presents the consequences of extreme interpretations of the two types of legal reasons discussed by the author.
(B) It shows how legal scholars can incorrectly use extreme examples to support their views.
(C) It corrects inaccuracies in legal scholars’ views of the nature of the two types of legal systems.
(D) It suggests how characterizations of the two types of legal reasons can become convoluted and inaccurate.
(E) It presents scholars’ characterizations of both legal systems that are only partially correct


6. The author of the passage suggests that in English law a substantive interpretation of a legal rule might be warranted under which one of the following circumstances?

(A) Social conditions have changed to the extent that to continue to enforce the rule would be to decide contrary to present-day social norms.
(B) The composition of the legislature has changed to the extent that to enforce the rule would be contrary to the views of the majority in the present legislative assembly.
(C) The legality of the rule is in question and its enforcement is open to judicial interpretation.
(D) Individuals who have violated the legal rule argue that application of the rule would lead to unfair judicial interpretations.
(E) Superior court judges have consistently ruled in decisions regarding the interpretation of the legal rule


7. According to the passage, which one of the following statements about substantive reasons is true?

(A) They may be written into laws, but they may also exert an external influence on the law.
(B) They must be explicitly written into the law in order to be relevant to the application of the law.
(C) They are legal in nature and determine particular applications of most laws.
(D) They often provide judges with specific rationales for disregarding the laws of the land.
(E) They are peripheral to the law, whereas formal reasons are central to the law.