In recent years, a growing belief that the way society decides what to

Question

In recent years, a growing belief that the way
society decides what to treat as true is controlled
through largely unrecognized discursive practices has
led legal reformers to examine the complex
 (5)  interconnections between narrative and law. In many
legal systems, legal judgments are based on competing
stories about events. Without having witnessed these
events, judges and juries must validate some stories as
true and reject others as false. This procedure is rooted
 (10)  in objectivism, a philosophical approach that has
supported most Western legal and intellectual systems
for centuries. Objectivism holds that there is a single
neutral description of each event that is unskewed by
any particular point of view and that has a privileged
 (15)  position over all other accounts. The law’s quest for
truth, therefore, consists of locating this objective
description, the one that tells what really happened, as
opposed to what those involved thought happened. The
serious flaw in objectivism is that there is no such thing
 (20)  as the neutral, objective observer. As psychologists
have demonstrated, all observers bring to a situation a
set of expectations, values, and beliefs that determine
what the observers are able to see and hear. Two
individuals listening to the same story will hear
 (25)  different things, because they emphasize those aspects
that accord with their learned experiences and ignore
those aspects that are dissonant with their view of the
world. Hence there is never any escape in life or in law
from selective perception, or from subjective
 (30)  judgments based on prior experiences, values, and
beliefs.

The societal harm caused by the assumption of
objectivist principles in traditional legal discourse is
that, historically, the stories judged to be objectively
 (35)  true are those told by people who are trained in legal
discourse, while the stories of those who are not fluent
in the language of the law are rejected as false.

Legal scholars such as Patricia Williams, Derrick
Bell, and Mari Matsuda have sought empowerment for
 (40)  the latter group of people through the construction of
alternative legal narratives. Objectivist legal discourse
systematically disallows the language of emotion and
experience by focusing on cognition in its narrowest
sense. These legal reformers propose replacing such
 (45)  abstract discourse with powerful personal stories. They
argue that the absorbing, nonthreatening structure and
tone of personal stories may convince legal insiders for
the first time to listen to those not fluent in legal
language. The compelling force of personal narrative
 (50)  can create a sense of empathy between legal insiders
and people traditionally excluded from legal discourse
and, hence, from power. Such alternative narratives can
shatter the complacency of the legal establishment and
disturb its tranquility. Thus, the engaging power of
 (55)  narrative might play a crucial, positive role in the
process of legal reconstruction by overcoming
differences in background and training and forming a
new collectivity based on emotional empathy.    1 
 1. Which one of the following best states the main idea of the passage?

(A) Some legal scholars have sought to empower people historically excluded from traditional legal discourse by instructing them in the forms of discourse favored by legal insiders.
(B) Some legal scholars have begun to realize the social harm caused by the adversarial atmosphere that has pervaded many legal systems for centuries.
(C) Some legal scholars have proposed alleviating the harm caused by the prominence of objectivist principles within legal discourse by replacing that discourse with alternative forms of legal narrative.
(D) Some legal scholars have contended that those who feel excluded from objectivist legal systems would be empowered by the construction of a new legal language that better reflected objectivist principles.
(E) Some legal scholars have argued that the basic flaw inherent in objectivist theory can be remedied by recognizing that it is not possible to obtain a single neutral description of a particular event.

2 
 2. According to the passage, which one of the following is true about the intellectual systems mentioned in line 11?

(A) They have long assumed the possibility of a neutral depiction of events.
(B) They have generally remained unskewed by particular points of view.
(C) Their discursive practices have yet to be analyzed by legal scholars.
(D) They accord a privileged position to the language of emotion and experience.
(E) The accuracy of their basic tenets has been confirmed by psychologists.

3 
 3. Which one of the following best describes the sense of “cognition” referred to in line 43 of the passage?

(A) logical thinking uninfluenced by passion
(B) the interpretation of visual cues
(C) human thought that encompasses all emotion and experience
(D) the reasoning actually employed by judges to arrive at legal judgments
(E) sudden insights inspired by the power of personal stories

4 
 4. It can be inferred from the passage that Williams’ Bell, and Matsuda believe which one of the following to be a central component of legal reform?

(A) incorporating into the law the latest developments in the fields of psychology and philosophy
(B) eradicating from legal judgments discourse with a particular point of view
(C) granting all participants in legal proceedings equal access to training in the forms and manipulation of legal discourse
(D) making the law more responsive to the discursive practices of a wider variety of people
(E) instilling an appreciation of legal history and methodology in all the participants in a legal proceeding

5 
 5. Which one of the following most accurately describes the author’s attitude toward proposals to introduce personal stories into legal discourse?

(A) strongly opposed
(B) somewhat skeptical
(C) ambivalent
(D) strongly supportive
(E) unreservedly optimistic

6 
 6. The passage suggests that Williams, Bell, and Matsuda would most likely agree with which one of the following statements regarding personal stories?

(A) Personal stories are more likely to adhere to the principles of objectivism than are other forms of discourse.
(B) Personal stories are more likely to de-emphasize differences in background and training than are traditional forms of legal discourse.
(C) Personal stories are more likely to restore tranquility to the legal establishment than are more adversarial forms of discourse.
(D) Personal stories are more likely to lead to the accurate reconstruction of facts than are traditional forms of legal narrative.
(E) Personal stories are more likely to be influenced by a person’s expectations, values, and beliefs than are other forms of discourse.

7 
 7. Which one of the following statements about legal discourse in legal systems based on objectivism can be inferred from the passage?

(A) In most Western societies’ the legal establishment controls access to training in legal discourse.
(B) Expertise in legal discourse affords power in most Western societies.
(C) Legal discourse has become progressively more abstract for some centuries.
(D) Legal discourse has traditionally denied the existence of neutral, objective observers.
(E) Traditional legal discourse seeks to reconcile dissonant world views.

8 
 8. Those who reject objectivism would regard “the law’s quest for truth”(lines 15–16) as most similar to which one of the following?

(A) a hunt for an imaginary animal
(B) the search for a valuable mineral among worthless stones
(C) the painstaking assembly of a jigsaw puzzle
(D) comparing an apple with an orange
(E) the scientific analysis of a chemical compound

Deadpool3 · Answer

Which one of the following best states the  main idea of the passage ?

(A) Some legal scholars have  sought to empower people historically excluded from traditional legal discourse  by instructing them in the forms of discourse favored by legal insiders. --> They empowering those included in legal discourse but who are not fluent
in the language of the law

(B) Some legal scholars have begun to realize the social harm caused by the adversarial atmosphere that has pervaded many legal systems for centuries.--> true, but not complete, they have realized something and are doing something about it .
(C) Some legal scholars have proposed alleviating the harm caused by the prominence of objectivist principles within legal discourse by replacing that discourse with alternative forms of legal narrative. --> Complete and relevant 
(D) Some legal scholars have contended that those who feel excluded from objectivist legal systems would be empowered by the construction of a  new legal language that better reflected objectivist principles . --> Infact they do not believe in Objectivism 
(E) Some legal scholars have argued that the basic flaw inherent in objectivist theory can be remedied by recognizing that it is not possible to obtain a single neutral description of a particular event. -->  True, but incomplete. They are doing something about it. Not by realizing only can a problem be solved

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Explanation

3. Which one of the following best describes the sense of “cognition” referred to in line 43 of the passage?

Difficulty Level:   700

Explanation

Here we get another line reference, and again our best bet is to refer back to the passage to check the detail in context. We’re concerned with the meaning of the word  “cognition”  in line 43, and here’s what the author says: Objectivist legal discourse disallows the language of emotion and experience  “by focusing on cognition in its narrowest sense.”  Cognition, therefore, is the mechanism by which emotion and experience can be eliminated from legal discourse. Cognition in this sense must therefore involve UNemotional language not based on experience, but rather on the objective truth in accordance with the principle of objectivism. This puts the notion of cognition into the passion-less realm of logic—just the facts, ma’am.  (A)  supplies this objectively correct objectivist notion of cognition.

(B)  relies on another definition of cognition—to see—that has no basis in the passage.  (B)  is thus way too literal in its attempt to link cognition to the actual interpretation of visual cues.

(C), (E) Opposite! As we’ve seen from the context, cognition is used to  “disallow the language of emotion and experience.”  It must therefore function in opposition to these things as well as in opposition to the personal stories approach to legal discourse based on emotion and experience.

(D)  Judges may or may not rely on the objectivist sense of  “cognition”  when deciding their cases, but the definition of cognition used in line 43 doesn’t depend on what judges actually do.

Answer: A

5. Which one of the following most accurately describes the author’s attitude toward proposals to introduce personal stories into legal discourse?

Difficulty Level:   700

Explanation

Our familiarity with the passage up to this point should allow us to pick up a quick point regarding the author’s attitude. If you picked up on the author’s positive tone regarding the alternative narrative proposal, you were probably able to quickly eliminate choices  (A), (B), and (C) .

What gives this impression of positivity? The first clue is the categorical denial of objectivism in  lines 18-20 . Since the personal stories proposal is a reaction against objectivism, a principle the author regards as flawed, we can infer that the author is therefore at least somewhat in favor of the proposed approach. The  “compelling force of personal narrative can create a sense of empathy . . .”  in  lines 49-50  reinforces this notion, as does the final sentence:  “The engaging power of narrative might play a crucial, positive role in the process of legal reconstruction . . .”

Sure sounds like someone who’s in favor of the personal stories approach, and so the question becomes, how strongly in favor:  “strongly supportive”   (D)  or  “unreservedly optimistic” (E) ?

The key here is the author’s fairly even tone and the use of the words  “can”  and  “might” —this approach can create a sense of empathy, and might help the situation described. Those words are simply not strong enough to indicate an attitude of  “unreserved”  optimism: the use of these words signifies a slightly more qualified form of approval.  (D) , strongly supportive, is therefore the best description of the author’s attitude toward the personal stories proposal.

Answer: D

Hope it helps

Midhilesh489 · Answer

How to memorise these kinds of long passages.I am re-reading passage almost for every question as I am not able to remember much of the passage. 
Took 16min - 5 Correct and 3 Wrong
Please help!!
Thanks in Advance

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Practice makes a man perfect, Just keep on practicing and you will be there. In RC there is no short cuts just make you stamina, focus on main idea and twists in the story don't bother for facts and figures. For further information follow below post it may help you. https://gmatclub.com/forum/how-to-read- ... 00886.html Best regards

hero_with_1000_faces · Answer

19 mins 1 wrong - Q7 silly mistake

Hi SajjadAhmad The answers posted by you are your own or from official source ? also, I have one doubt in Question 7. 7. Which one of the following statements about legal discourse in legal systems based on objectivism can be inferred from the passage? between B and D, clearly the answer is B , but in my review i am finding it hard to eliminate D (B) Expertise in legal discourse affords power in most Western societies. (D) Legal discourse has traditionally denied the existence of neutral, objective observers. We know that psychologist deny objective observers. However: Objectivism holds that there is a single neutral description of each event that is unskewed by any particular point of view and that has a privileged (15) position over all other accounts . Does this part "that has a privileged position over all other accounts" mean that Legal discourse doesn't deny the existence rather just state that a single neutral description is superior to other.

Sajjad1994 · Answer

(D)  is opposite! Traditional legal discourse has been based on the objectivist principle for centuries. Far from denying the existence of neutral, objective observers, this principle is based on the existence of such observers.

Hope it helps

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Explanation

8. Those who reject objectivism would regard “the law’s quest for truth”(lines 15–16) as most similar to which one of the following?

Difficulty Level:   700

Explanation

Question number 8 on this passage is an application question: What would  “the law’s quest for truth”  seem like to someone who rejects objectivism? The first step in such an endeavor is to determine what such a person would believe. Use what you already know: Someone who rejects objectivism would probably agree with the author’s objection to this philosophy stated in  lines 19-20 :  “... there is no such thing as the neutral, objective, observer.”  Since legal  “truth”  is an objectivist principle, such a person would not believe in the existence of such a truth, in the ability to precisely determine  “what really happened.”  So to such a critic of objectivism,  “the law’s quest for truth”  would amount to a fruitless search for a non-existent entity. This could be your pre-phrase, in some form or another. The closest analogy among the choices is (A)’s  “hunt for an imaginary animal.”  All of the wrong choices center around things that exist, while to the opponent of objectivism  “truth”  doesn’t exist.

(B)  This mineral may be hard to find, but it exists.

(C)  This puzzle may be hard to assemble, but it exists.

(D)  Both kinds of fruit, of course, exist, not to mention that such a comparison strays from the notion of a quest or a search.

(E)  An  “analysis”  is off the mark as well, as it doesn’t match the  “quest”  element of the stem. But besides that, the chemical compound, you guessed it, exists, and thus an analysis of it cannot be similar to the quest for a non-existent truth.

Answer: A

Hope it helps

hero_with_1000_faces · Answer

I think we both have different understanding.

IMO- Objective Observers is different from a single neutral description.

From passage I can infer that Objective Observers mean any person who is part of the case. eg a witness who has seen a murder. so as per passage (more so psychologist) there cannot an  objective person   (witness) bcoz we have biases in our thinking.

so D is not opposite according to me.

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Explanation

2. According to the passage, which one of the following is true about the intellectual systems mentioned in line 11?

Difficulty Level:   650

Explanation

There’s only one thing we know for sure about the intellectual systems mentioned in  line 11 , and that is that most are supported by objectivism; this is made clear in the very sentence containing  line 11. “Supported by objectivism”  would therefore make a good prephrase, but unfortunately that’s not among the choices (although the near opposite of this is given in (D)). But we get the next best thing, a choice that contains the basic tenet of objectivism listed in the lines immediately following  line 11 : Objectivism assumes the possibility of a neutral depiction of events which reigns supreme over any kind of personal accounts of what happened. So we have two considerations: First, objectivism is based on the neutral depiction of events; secondly, the intellectual systems in question have been supported by objectivism for centuries. Putting two and two together, we see that the intellectual systems have long assumed the possibility of a neutral depiction of events,  choice (A).

(B)  mistakenly assigns one property of objectivism (events are unskewed by particular points of view) to intellectual systems as a whole. Just because these systems have been supported by a vision of the world containing unskewed events doesn’t mean that these intellectual systems themselves, on the whole, have remained unskewed by particular points of view.

(C)  Legal scholars have evidently analyzed the discursive practices of legal systems—this is evidently why the scholars listed in the passage propose the shift to the narrative forms of legal discourse. But we can’t tell from the passage whether or not these scholars have also analyzed the discursive practices of intellectual systems.

(D)  As mentioned above,  (D)  tends to contradict the passage. We find out later on (lines 41- 43) that objectivist discourse (at least in the legal sense) does not favor emotion and experience, and since the intellectual systems mentioned are supported by objectivism, we can infer that these systems don’t give priority to emotion and experience either. (Note that we are assuming a similarity between objectivist legal discourse and the discourse characteristic of intellectual systems based on objectivism. But even if we disallow this assumption, there is still no support for the notion related in (D)).

(E)  Psychologists give credence to the author’s notion that objectivism is flawed. The intellectual systems in question are supported by objectivism, so if anything, the psychologists would oppose, rather than confirm, the basic tenets of the intellectual systems in  line 11.

Answer: A

4. It can be inferred from the passage that Williams’ Bell, and Matsuda believe which one of the following to be a central component of legal reform?

Difficulty Level:   700

Explanation

The mention of these scholars should lead you to para 3 where their views are discussed. Williams, Bell, and Matsuda have a definite problem with the inequities of the current objectivist-based legal system—it favors those fluent in the specialized modes of legal discourse, and disadvantages those who are not. Their alternative legal narrative based on  “personal stories”  is a response to this unfair system: A central component of this notion of legal reform is to democratize the process so that everyone could compete in the legal arena on equal footing. In other words, they wish to make the law more responsive to the ways in which most people talk and communicate, as opposed to the current system in which only a privileged few know the lingo.  (D)  says this in a slightly fancier way.

(A)  digs up  “psychology”  and  “philosophy”  from an earlier part of the passage (the legal scholars in the stem don’t appear until para 3), but Williams, Bell, and Matsuda make no explicit appeal to either.

(B)  These proponents of the alternative narrative don’t shun the idea of legal discourse with a point of view; they simply believe that there is no one correct neutral objective point of view. They’re not in favor of eliminating point of view entirely but rather of changing the notion of what “point of view” means in the context of legal proceedings.

(C)  hits at the wrong angle—education. These reformers don’t want to educate people to function better in the old system, they want to change the current system of legal discourse to better fit people’s natural modes of discourse.

(E), like (C),  revolves around enlightening the participants, making them smarter or better or more aware, presumably so that they will function better within the legal system. But as noted, the purpose of the proposed legal reform is not to change the people to fit the system, but rather to change the system to fit the people.

Answer: D

Does this make sense?

auradediligodo · Answer

Hi everyone,
Got 7/8 correct in 16:20 minutes.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

P1

In paragraph one we are given that there is a connection between law and narrative. As a matter of fact, objectivism has been used for centuries as the ground for legal judgements. The author is clearly contrasting objectivism as she thinks that humans are not capable of such thing and her belief is backed by the claim of physiologists.

Purpose:  The purpose of this paragraph is to refute objectivism as a ground for legal judgements

P2

Paragraph 2 reveals a further flaw in the legal judgments field as the only people considered as objectivists were the people trained to talk in legal terms.

Purpose:  To highlight a further flaw in the legal system

P3

In paragraph 3 we see how some researchers tried to empower those who are not able to talk in legal terms. As a matter of fact this group of people suggests to speak in an emotional way and to narrate strong stories so that empathy can be created and the classical legal world can be changed.

Purpose:  Highlight the work done by some researchers to empower a group of people whom previously was not considered in the legal world.

Main point

The main point is to refute objectivism for legal judgments and to highlight the work done by some scholars/researchers to empower a group of people that was not well considered in the courts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Which one of the following best states the main idea of the passage?

Pre-thinking

Main point question

Refer to main point and summaries above

(A) Some legal scholars have sought to empower people historically excluded from traditional legal discourse by instructing them in the forms of discourse favored by legal insiders.
 Inconsistent as the scholars indeed want to empower people but not on the grounds of legal discourse

(B) Some legal scholars have begun to realize the social harm caused by the adversarial atmosphere that has pervaded many legal systems for centuries.
 out of scope

(C)   Some legal scholars have proposed alleviating the harm caused by the prominence of objectivist principles within legal discourse by replacing that discourse with alternative forms of legal narrative.
 In line with pre-thinking

(D) Some legal scholars have contended that those who feel excluded from objectivist legal systems would be empowered by the construction of a new legal language that better reflected objectivist principles.
 inconsistent for similar reasons as in choice A

(E) Some legal scholars have argued that the basic flaw inherent in objectivist theory can be remedied by recognizing that it is not possible to obtain a single neutral description of a particular event.
 Too partial scope

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. According to the passage, which one of the following is true about the intellectual systems mentioned in line 11?

Pre-thinking

Detail question

Such system relied on objectivism for centuries

(A)   They have long assumed the possibility of a neutral depiction of events.
 in line with pre-thinking

(B) They have generally remained unskewed by particular points of view.
 Not mentioned

(C) Their discursive practices have yet to be analyzed by legal scholars.
 Not mentioned

(D) They accord a privileged position to the language of emotion and experience.
 Not mentioned

(E) The accuracy of their basic tenets has been confirmed by psychologists.
 Not mentioned

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Which one of the following best describes the sense of “cognition” referred to in line 43 of the passage?

Pre-thinking

Inference question

The term cognition is related with the realization of a thought in a logical way

(A)   logical thinking uninfluenced by passion
 In line with pre-thinking

(B) the interpretation of visual cues
 Out of scope

(C) human thought that encompasses all  emotion  and experience
 Out of scope

(D) the reasoning actually employed by judges to arrive at legal judgments
 Out of scope

(E) sudden insights inspired by the power of personal stories
 Out of scope

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. It can be inferred from the passage that Williams’ Bell, and Matsuda believe which one of the following to be a central component of legal reform?

Pre-thinking

Inference question

Their purpose is to give an opportunity to be taken seriously to those that cannot speak well in legal terms.

(A) incorporating into the law the latest developments in the fields of psychology and philosophy
 out of scope

(B) eradicating from legal judgments discourse with a particular point of view
 opposite

(C) granting all participants in legal proceedings equal access to training in the forms and manipulation of legal discourse
 such scholars don't want people to manipulate legal discourse but to express their emotions while telling their story

(D)   making the law more responsive to the discursive practices of a wider variety of people
 In line with pre-thinking

(E) instilling an appreciation of legal history and methodology in all the participants in a legal proceeding
 out of scope

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Which one of the following most accurately describes the author’s attitude toward proposals to introduce personal stories into legal discourse?

Pre-thinking

Author's attitude question

The author is supportive

(A) strongly opposed
 opposite

(B) somewhat skeptical
 opposite

(C) ambivalent
 clearly supposrtive

(D)   strongly supportive
 Yes

(E) unreservedly optimistic
 Optimism implies that he thinks that the approach will work out while here the author just thinks that the approach is correct

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. The passage suggests that Williams, Bell, and Matsuda would most likely agree with which one of the following statements regarding personal stories?

Pre-thinking

Inference question

They support the usage of personal stories as they believe that such stories will help to create empathy.

(A) Personal stories are more likely to adhere to the principles of objectivism than are other forms of discourse.
 out of scope

(B)   Personal stories are more likely to de-emphasize differences in background and training than are traditional forms of legal discourse.
 we can infer this option from the very last lines of the passage

(C) Personal stories are more likely to restore tranquility to the legal establishment than are more adversarial forms of discourse.
 opposite

(D) Personal stories are more likely to lead to the accurate reconstruction of facts than are traditional forms of legal narrative.
 out of scope

(E) Personal stories are more likely to be influenced by a person’s expectations, values, and beliefs than are other forms of discourse.
 too extreme

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Which one of the following statements about legal discourse in legal systems based on objectivism can be inferred from the passage?

Pre-thinking

inference question

We know from the passage that such system is an advantage for those trained to speak in terms of legal terms, that the proponents of this system believe that objectivism is possible and that this system is somehow associated with power.

(A) In most Western societies’ the legal establishment controls access to training in legal discourse.
 out of scope

(B)   Expertise in legal discourse affords power in most Western societies.
 In line with pre-thinking

(C) Legal discourse has become progressively more abstract for some centuries.
 out of scope

(D) Legal discourse has traditionally denied the existence of neutral, objective observers.
 opposite

(E) Traditional legal discourse seeks to reconcile dissonant world views.
 world views.... this expression does not make sense in this context. The correct version of this option would have  dissonant stories  instead..

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. Those who reject objectivism would regard “the law’s quest for truth”(lines 15–16) as most similar to which one of the following?

Pre-thinking

inference question

If such quest has the aim of locating an objective depiction, the those who oppose objectivism believe that the quest is fundamentally biased

(A)   a hunt for an imaginary animal
 In line with pre-thinking

(B) the search for a valuable mineral among worthless stones
 This option allows the existence of the mineral (=the objective story), while the opponents of objectivism do not believe that the objective story exists at all

(C) the painstaking assembly of a jigsaw puzzle
 out of scope

(D) comparing an apple with an orange
 out of scope

(E) the scientific analysis of a chemical compound
 out of scope

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is a good day to be alive!

vinny12 · Answer

5. Which one of the following most accurately describes the author’s attitude toward proposals to introduce personal stories into legal discourse?

Difficulty Level:   700

Explanation

Our familiarity with the passage up to this point should allow us to pick up a quick point regarding the author’s attitude. If you picked up on the author’s positive tone regarding the alternative narrative proposal, you were probably able to quickly eliminate choices  (A), (B), and (C) .

What gives this impression of positivity? The first clue is the categorical denial of objectivism in  lines 18-20 . Since the personal stories proposal is a reaction against objectivism, a principle the author regards as flawed, we can infer that the author is therefore at least somewhat in favor of the proposed approach. The  “compelling force of personal narrative can create a sense of empathy . . .”  in  lines 49-50  reinforces this notion, as does the final sentence:  “The engaging power of narrative might play a crucial, positive role in the process of legal reconstruction . . .”

Sure sounds like someone who’s in favor of the personal stories approach, and so the question becomes, how strongly in favor:  “strongly supportive”   (D)  or  “unreservedly optimistic” (E) ?

The key here is the author’s fairly even tone and the use of the words  “can”  and  “might” —this approach can create a sense of empathy, and might help the situation described. Those words are simply not strong enough to indicate an attitude of  “unreserved”  optimism: the use of these words signifies a slightly more qualified form of approval.  (D) , strongly supportive, is therefore the best description of the author’s attitude toward the personal stories proposal.

Answer: D

Hope it helps

Hi Sajjad,
I have a question regarding Q5. Below is the meaning of unreservedly as per google.

un·re·serv·ed·ly
/ˌənrəˈzərvidlē/
Learn to pronounce
adverb
1.
without reservations; completely.
"I unreservedly recommend the book"
2.
frankly and openly.
"we like to be able to talk unreservedly about ourselves"

My question is that if author was strongly supporting the view, then he would be certain and will not use "can" and "might" in his explanation. By using these words isn't he implying that there's a slightest of the possibility that the approach might not work, however the author is positive that it "might" work.

What in the author's explanation implies that the proposal is "strongly supported" by the author.

Experts kindly help.

Vinay

Harsh2111s · Answer

5. Which one of the following most accurately describes the author’s attitude toward proposals to introduce personal stories into legal discourse?

(A) strongly opposed
(B) somewhat skeptical
(C) ambivalent
(D) strongly supportive
(E) unreservedly optimistic

VeritasKarishma   GMATNinja   AjiteshArun

In passage it is clearly mentioned
"The compelling force of personal narrative  can  create a sense of empathy between legal insiders and people traditionally excluded from legal discourse and, hence, from power. Such alternative narratives  can  shatter the complacency of the legal establishment and disturb its tranquility. Thus, the engaging power of narrative  might  play a crucial, positive role in the process of legal reconstruction by overcoming differences in background and training and forming a new collectivity based on emotional empathy.

How can above lines refer to strong support toward proposals to introduce personal stories into legal discourse ?
Please explain

KarishmaB · Answer

The author is explaining how personal stories could be useful in legal discourse. So he is supporting them completely. Hence (D) is correct.

The words you highlighted is the reason (E) is not the answer. He has reservations about whether it will exactly work out as he expects.

yikes000 · Answer

very helpful thanks!
in general, for RC, I have found these tactics to be useful:
Active Reading: Engage actively with the text by summarizing paragraphs in your own words. Try to predict what comes next and identify key points as you read.

Practice Skimming and Scanning: Develop the skill to skim passages for the main idea and structure, while also scanning for specific details or answers to questions. This helps manage time effectively during the test.

Focus on Structure and Logic: Understand the passage's organization, the author's argument, and how ideas connect. Look for transitions, cause-and-effect relationships, and the author's tone or perspective.

Regular Practice and Review: Consistent practice with GMAT-style passages and questions is crucial. Review incorrect answers to understand your mistakes and strategies better. Use reputable GMAT prep materials to simulate test conditions.

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Explanation

7. Which one of the following statements about legal discourse in legal systems based on objectivism can be inferred from the passage?

Difficulty Level:   700

Explanation

We’re asked to consider the same familiar topic—legal discourse in a system based on objectivism. Correct  choice (B)  is inferable partly from the reason why the reformers seek reform in the first place: they want to correct the inequities inherent in the current objectivist-based legal system, and inherent in the notion of inequities, or unfairness, is that one side has more power than another. The privileged side, according to the reformers, are privileged because they speak the legal jargon. Thus we can infer, as  (B)  has it, that fluency in the form of legal discourse characteristic of most objectivist-based Western societies confers power. But there’s even a stronger basis for this inference, one that perhaps clinched it for you, and it comes directly from the sentence in  lines 49-52:  The author states that personal narratives can foster  “a sense of empathy between legal insiders and people traditionally excluded from legal discourse, and hence, from power.”  From this sentence alone we can infer that fluency in legal discourse confers power (see the second bullet point below for a further enunciation of this).

(A)  Here’s that issue of  “training”  again, and once again, it’s off the mark: We know that people who are trained in legal discourse have an advantage in the current system over people who aren’t. However, where they get this training is never addressed in the passage.

(C)  is a distortion. The passage equates the objectivist-driven form of legal discourse with abstraction  (line 45) , but nowhere is it implied that the level of this abstraction has progressively increased over time.

(D)  Once again, au contraire! Traditional legal discourse has been based on the objectivist principle for centuries. Far from denying the existence of neutral, objective observers, this principle is based on the existence of such observers.

(E) , if anything, also goes against the grain of the passage. Traditional objectivist legal discourse seeks the one objective truth associated with any event. The proposed personal stories approach, on the other hand, seems to believe in the possibility that many different stories can be true regarding an event, depending on who tells of it, with what emotion, and based on what personal experience. Therefore, the personal stories approach is more likely than traditional legal discourse to promote the reconciliation of dissonant world views—it suggests that many different accounts can be right in their own way. The objectivists would never accept that.

Answer: B

In recent years, a growing belief that the way society decides what to

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Reading Comprehension (RC) Questions

In recent years, a growing belief that the way society decides what to

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards