For Agamben, today’s processes of judicial governance

Source egmat

For Agamben, today’s processes of judicial governance are symptoms of a shift in governmental policies toward extending the rule of law to extra-judicial areas of governance; however, in arriving at this derivation, his conclusion neglects to account for the necessity of processes such as fingerprinting, undoubtedly required in the extra-judicial areas of governance.

Meaning Analysis

For Agamben, today’s processes of judicial governance are symptoms of a shift in governmental policies toward extending the rule of law to extra-judicial areas of governance;
however, in arriving at this derivation, his conclusion neglects to account for the necessity of processes such as fingerprinting, undoubtedly required in the extra-judicial areas of governance.


This sentence tells us that Agamben thinks that the judicial governance processes represent a shift in government policies. This shift is toward extending the rule of law to extra-judicial areas of governance.

In contrast to the above, the sentence further states that while coming to this conclusion, Agamben does not take into account the requirement of processes such as fingerprinting, which are needed in the extra-judicial areas of governance.

Error Analysis

The modifier “in arriving…” refers to “his conclusion” rather than to Agamben. This meaning is illogical. It was Agamben who arrived at the derivation, not his conclusion.

Answer Choices
A
in arriving at this derivation, his conclusion neglects to account for the necessity of processes such as fingerprinting,

Incorrect:

This choice has the errors pointed out in the error analysis.

B
the necessity of such processes as fingerprinting is neglected in the conclusion arriving at this derivation,

Incorrect:

1) This choice distorts the intended meaning as it says that the necessity is neglected while according to the original sentence, accounting for the necessity is neglected.

2) The verb-ing modifier “arriving…” should modify Agamben but it illogically modifies ‘conclusion’.

3) The modifier “undoubtedly required…” in the non-underlined portion of the sentence now incorrectly modifies “this derivation”. It should modify processes.

C
arriving at this derivation neglects to account for the necessity of processes such as fingerprinting, a conclusion that is

Incorrect:

1) According to this choice, the action of “arriving at this derivation” neglects to account for the necessity of processes. This is illogical since the action did not neglect anything; it was Agamben who did not take into account the necessity of processes.

2) It is the processes such as fingerprinting that are required in the extra-judicial areas of governance, not what Agamben concluded about judicial governance processes.

in arriving at this derivation, he neglects to account for the necessity of such processes as fingerprinting that are

Correct:

1) This choice corrects the error in the original sentence. It correctly states that Agamben arrives at the derivation.

2) Also, the plural verb “are” makes it absolutely clear that the processes are required in the extra-judicial areas of governance.

E
the necessity of such processes as fingerprinting, which he neglects in arriving at this derivation, is

Incorrect:

This choice again conveys an illogical meaning by saying that “the necessity of X is undoubtedly required”. The processes are required, not the necessity.