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

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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