Philosopher Denise Meyerson views the Critical Legal Studies (CLS) mov

Question

Philosopher Denise Meyerson views the Critical
Legal Studies (CLS) movement as seeking to debunk
orthodox legal theory by exposing its contradictions.
However, Meyerson argues that CLS proponents tend
 (5)  to see contradictions where none exist, and that CLS
overrates the threat that conflict poses to orthodox legal
theory.

According to Meyerson, CLS proponents hold that
the existence of conflicting values in the law implies
 (10)  the absence of any uniquely right solution to legal
cases. CLS argues that these conflicting values
generate equally plausible but opposing answers to any
given legal question, and, consequently, that the choice
between the conflicting answers must necessarily be
 (15)  arbitrary or irrational. Meyerson denies that the
existence of conflicting values makes a case
irresolvable, and asserts that at least some such cases
can be resolved by ranking the conflicting values. For
example, a lawyer’s obligation to preserve a client’s
 (20)  confidences may entail harming other parties, thus
violating moral principle. This conflict can be resolved
if it can be shown that in certain cases the professional
obligation overrides ordinary moral obligations.

In addition, says Meyerson, even when the two
 (25)  solutions are equally compelling, it does not follow that
the choice between them must be irrational. On the
contrary, a solution that is not rationally required need
not be unreasonable. Meyerson concurs with another
critic that instead of concentrating on the choice
 (30)  between two compelling alternatives, we should rather
reflect on the difference between both of these answers
on the one hand, and some utterly unreasonable answer
on the other—such as deciding a property dispute on
the basis of which claimant is louder. The
 (35)  acknowledgment that conflicting values can exist, then,
does not have the far-reaching implications imputed by
CLS; even if some answer to a problem is not the only
answer, opting for it can still be reasonable.

Last, Meyerson takes issue with the CLS charge
 (40)  that legal formalism, the belief that there is a quasi-
deductive method capable of giving solutions to
problems of legal choice, requires objectivism, the
belief that the legal process has moral authority.
Meyerson claims that showing the law to be
 (45)  unambiguous does not demonstrate its legitimacy:
consider a game in which participants compete to steal
the item of highest value from a shop; while a person
may easily identify the winner in terms of the rules, it
does not follow that the person endorses the rules of
 (50)  the game. A CLS scholar might object that legal cases
are unlike games, in that one cannot merely apply the
rules without appealing to, and therefore endorsing,
external considerations of purpose, policy, and value.
But Meyerson replies that such considerations may be
 (55)  viewed as part of, not separate from, the rules of the
game.    1 
 1. Which one of the following best expresses the main idea of the passage?

(A) The arguments of the Critical Legal Studies movement are under attack not only by legal theorists, but also by thinkers in related areas such as philosophy.
(B) In critiquing the Critical Legal Studies movement, Meyerson charges that the positions articulated by the movement’s proponents overlook the complexity of actual legal dilemmas.
(C) Meyerson objects to the propositions of the Critical Legal Studies movement because she views them as being self-contradictory.
(D) Meyerson poses several objections to the tenets of the Critical Legal Studies movement, but her most important argument involves constructing a hierarchy of conflicting values.
(E) Meyerson seeks to counter the claims that are made by proponents of the Critical Legal Studies movement in their effort to challenge conventional legal theory.

2 
 2. The primary purpose of the reference to a game in the last paragraph is to

(A) provide an example of how a principle has previously been applied
(B) demonstrate a point by means of an analogy
(C) emphasize the relative unimportance of an activity
(D) contrast two situations by exaggerating their differences
(E) dismiss an idea by portraying it as reprehensible

3 
 3. The author’s primary purpose in the passage is to

(A) evaluate divergent legal doctrines
(B) explain how a controversy arose
(C) advocate a new interpretation of legal tradition
(D) describe a challenge to a school of thought
(E) refute claims made by various scholars

4 
 4. It can be inferred from the passage that Meyerson would be most likely to agree with which one of the following statements about “external considerations” (line 53)?

(A) How one determines the extent to which these considerations are relevant depends on one’s degree of belief in the legal process.
(B) The extent to which these considerations are part of the legal process depends on the extent to which the policies and values can be endorsed.
(C) When these considerations have more moral authority than the law, the former should outweigh the latter.
(D) If one uses these considerations in determining a legal solution, one is assuming that the policies and values are desirable.
(E) Whether these considerations are separate from or integral to the legal process is a matter of debate.

5 
 5. The phrase “far-reaching implications” (line 36) refers to the idea that

(A) any choice made between conflicting solutions to a legal question will be arbitrary
(B) every legal question will involve the consideration of a set of values
(C) two or more alternative solutions to a legal question may carry equal moral weight
(D) no legal question will have a single correct answer
(E) the most relevant criterion for judging solutions is the degree of rationality they possess

6 
 6. Which one of the following most accurately describes the organization of the final paragraph in the passage?

(A) A criticism is identified and its plausibility is investigated.
(B) The different arguments made by two opponents of a certain viewpoint are advanced.
(C) The arguments for and against a certain position are outlined, then a new position is offered to reconcile them.
(D) A belief is presented and its worth is debated on the basis of its practical consequences.
(E) Two different solutions are imagined in order to summarize a controversy.

7 
 7. It can be inferred from the passage that proponents of the Critical Legal Studies movement would be most likely to hold which one of the following views about the law?

(A) It incorporates moral principles in order to yield definitive solutions to legal problems.
(B) It does not necessarily imply approval of any policies or values.
(C) It is insufficient in itself to determine the answer to a legal question.
(D) It is comparable to the application of rules in a game.
(E) It can be used to determine the best choice between conflicting values.

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Explanation

4. It can be inferred from the passage that Meyerson would be most likely to agree with which one of the following statements about “external considerations” (line 53)?

Explanation

The line reference takes us to the  “external considerations” of line 53 , which in turn takes us back to the  “game” .  Lines 50-53  say that CLS scholars might try to break the analogy between the shoplifting game and legal rules by claiming that it’s impossible to form legal rules without making some moral judgments. That is, one has to bring in external considerations. But Meyerson counters that such considerations may be viewed as inherent in the rules of the game; in other words, those considerations may not be  “external”  after all. Applied back to the world of legal rules, we can therefore infer that Meyerson would find it debatable whether the moral judgments are external to the legal world, as the CLS proponents suggest in their objection.

(A)  The extent of one’s belief in the legal process isn’t relevant to anything. It isn’t even mentioned.

(B)  If anything, the necessity of endorsing policies and values harks back to CLS’s point, not Meyerson’s.

(C)  might remind you of  paragraph 2 , where Meyerson discusses a situation in which one value might outweigh another. But that was part of another discussion.

(D)  is a plausible point of view, but there’s no indication that Meyerson believes it. If anything, it sounds as though Meyerson believes that the moral world could be completely distinct from the legal world.

Answer: E

5. The phrase “far-reaching implications” (line 36) refers to the idea that?

Explanation

Paragraph 3  presents Meyerson’s counter to the CLS claim involving conflicting values. Meyerson says that even when values conflict, we can reason it out. For that reason, Meyerson thinks that the CLS critique doesn’t have such  “far-reaching implications.” Lines 37-8  clarify this point: deciding between answers can be a reasoned process even if there isn’t one undeniable answer. This was enough to point you to  (A) . The CLS scholars believe that conflicting values reduce legal theory to arbitrariness. Indeed, that would be a far-reaching implication. But Meyerson thinks that one can find a reasoned answer even given conflicting values.

(B)  isn’t a point of contention here, so it can’t be the  “far-reaching conclusion”  that Meyerson disputes. Meyerson acknowledges that values are at play here.

(C)  The notion of alternative solutions that are morally similar isn’t present in the passage.

(D)  is a CLS view from  Paragraph 2 , but isn’t the one that Meyerson contests in  Paragraph 3 . Meyerson doesn’t try to show that legal questions have unique answers. She just tries to show that choosing between answers isn’t an arbitrary process. So  (D)  goes too far.

(E)  distorts the passage. Rationality is the tool we can use for choosing between alternative solutions. The solutions themselves aren’t ranked in terms of their rationality.

Answer: A

6. Which one of the following most accurately describes the organization of the final paragraph in the passage?

Difficulty Level:   750

Explanation

Paragraph 4  discusses Meyerson’s take on the relationship between formalism and objectivism. The author first identifies Meyerson’s critique of the CLS claim that formalism requires objectivism, which matches the first part of  choice (A).  The rest of the paragraph investigates Meyerson’s position, using the shoplifting game as an example. The author raises a possible CLS objection, but counters with Meyerson’s likely reply to it. In doing so, the author is investigating the plausibility of Meyerson’s critique, and so the rest of  (A)  matches up as well.

(B)  There aren’t two different opponents of a single view here, but rather two conflicting viewpoints presented.

(C)  What new position?

(D)  If anything, practical consequences are discussed in  Paragraph 3 , but not  paragraph 4.

(E)  What two different solutions?

Answer: A

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Explanation

3. The author’s primary purpose in the passage is to

Explanation

The author’s primary purpose is closely connected to the main idea. As we’ve discussed, the author describes Meyerson’s challenge to CLS, but the author’s own opinion doesn’t really come through.  (D)  captures this notion.

(A), (C),  and  (E)  are too opinionated to be correct here. In fact, you could eliminate all of them on the basis of their verb alone. Does the author “evaluate,” “advocate,” or “refute?” No way, so (A),  (C) , and  (E)  must be wrong.

(B)  starts off OK, but this essay concerns the controversy itself, and not how it arose.

Answer: D

7. It can be inferred from the passage that proponents of the Critical Legal Studies movement would be most likely to hold which one of the following views about the law?

Difficulty Level:   700

Explanation

CLS views are discussed at many different points of the passage, so it would have been tough to prephrase an answer here. So choice-by-choice is the way to go:

(A)  Opposite, CLS scholars think that conflicting values render it impossible to come up with a definitive answer to a legal question.

(B)  Opposite,  Paragraph 4  says that CLS scholars believe that the law is intertwined with value decisions.

(C)  is inferable for the same reason that (A) wasn’t. CLS scholars think that legal theory cannot provide definitive answers to legal questions  (lines 8-15) . So  (C)  is correct.

(D)  Opposite, it’s Meyerson that makes the game comparison. CLS scholars would reject it.

(E)  No, it’s Meyerson that says that there can be better choices given competing values

Answer: C

nithyak · Answer

Hi  GMATNinja  
I watched your very informative video on this passage, thank you for that. But please help me understand the reasoning behind the question on Meyerson agreeing to which statement regarding "external considerations". 
The answer choice provided as correct says that Meyerson is of the opinion that whether the considerations are a part of or separate from the legal system is a matter of debate. But in the last sentence of the paragraph she clearly states that her opinion is that "the considerations may be viewed as part of and NOT separate from blah blah...". So by choosing "part of" over "separate from" isn't she implying that this matter is not really debatable and that the considerations are in fact integral and not separate from the legal process??

GMATNinja · Answer

Question 4 
 
Thank you for the kind words,  nithyak !

This passage is unbelievably difficult, so I wouldn't worry about it TOO much. And based on the current stats, more than 2/3 of people seem to miss that very same question. Ouch!

For what it's worth, the key word here is "may." Meyerson states that the considerations  may  be viewed as part of the rules of the game -- she doesn't say that they "should" or "must" be viewed as part of the game.

Also, notice the phrasing on the question itself:

Would she agree that this is a matter of debate? Sure. She and the CLS scholars seem to disagree on this point, so it's fair to say that it's a matter of debate. Also, the question asks which of the following she's " most  likely to agree with" -- and (E) might not be perfect, but it's easily the best of the bunch.

For anybody who's wondering about the video, we covered this passage in detail in the second half of  this video on miserably hard GMAT RC passages .

I hope that helps a bit! And seriously: don't lose too much sleep over this passage. It's HARD.

Prakruti_Patil · Answer

still struggling with Q3 - Option A -- evaluating legal doctrines --- isn't the author speaking to CLS (from Meyerson's POV) and defending existing legal theory... so wouldn't evaluating legal doctrines apply here?

GMATNinja · Answer

(A) is tempting, but we actually have no idea what the AUTHOR thinks about CLS or about Meyerson's objections to CLS.

The author simply presents some information about CLS, orthodox legal theory, and Meyerson's thoughts on both. It's Meyerson who evaluates CLS and orthodox legal theory, not the author.

The author is just like a news reporter here, telling us WHAT happened, not what he/she thinks about it. The author is simply describing Meyerson's thoughts, so (D) is a much better fit.

For more fun with Meyerson, check out the second half of  this video on really hard RC passages .

I hope that helps!

SecretAdmirer · Answer

GMATNinja  - I encountered this passage in one of your RC videos, I tried solving it on my own but struggled with 3/7 questions on these, and therefore wanted to understand if this is the level we should expect on the GMAT Focus examination? Would be great if you could let me and some other test takers of your thoughts. Thank you! Love your free course and appreciate the great work you are doing for test takers like us.

GMATNinja · Answer

Struggling with 3 out of 7 questions on a tough passage isn't necessarily a bad thing! And as discussed in the video (presumably  this one ?), this is a really, really tough passage.

For context, we've seen students miss over 10 out of 23 on the GMAT verbal section and still break 80. We've also seen students miss 8 questions and score above an 85! That's certainly not common, but the point is that you should absolutely expect to struggle with questions and get several wrong on test day -- that's just the nature of an adaptive test like the GMAT. And you will likely struggle with at least one of the RC passages.

It's impossible to judge your level based on the results of a single passage. Instead of worry about how many you got wrong, ask yourself:

Did I stick to and trust my process? 
 Did I make any careless mistakes or misread something?

If not, then move on to the next passage and just keep going.

gotitright · Answer

This is a general question but also relates to Q.6 of this passage. I always have difficulty trying to answer the abstract structure questions. It's not that I can't identify the structure of the paragraph or passage but that I get confused b/w options. Every option seems like the answer to me if I twist the options a bit.

Please help me out with this.

Please help me out with this.

egmat · Answer

How to Approach Structure Questions

Step 1: Map the paragraph BEFORE looking at options 
   Chunk 
 What happens 
 
  Sentence 1 
 CLS criticism stated: "formalism requires objectivism" 
 
  Sentences 2-3 
 Meyerson counters with game analogy 
 
  Sentence 4 
 CLS objection: "legal cases aren't like games" 
 
  Sentence 5 
 Meyerson replies to objection

Step 2: Pre-phrase in plain words 
"A criticism is stated, then tested through back-and-forth."

Step 3: Match with ZERO flexibility 
(A) "Criticism identified and plausibility investigated" — exact match. Done.

Why Others Fail
 
  (B)  "two opponents of the same thing" — CLS and Meyerson oppose EACH OTHER 
  (C)  "reconcile" — no compromise; Meyerson defeats CLS 
  (D)  "practical consequences" — the game is an analogy, not real-world effects 
  (E)  "solutions" and "summarize" — neither happens here  
 Golden Rule:  Pre-phrase first. EACH word in the answer choice must match the passage — if even one word doesn't fit, eliminate it.

Answer: (A) 
For more on this approach, watch:  https://www.loom.com/share/bd2207d92af94ea2abe61d6be791bf18

Philosopher Denise Meyerson views the Critical Legal Studies (CLS) mov

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

Chunk	What happens
Sentence 1	CLS criticism stated: "formalism requires objectivism"
Sentences 2-3	Meyerson counters with game analogy
Sentence 4	CLS objection: "legal cases aren't like games"
Sentence 5	Meyerson replies to objection

GMAT Reading Comprehension (RC) Questions

Philosopher Denise Meyerson views the Critical Legal Studies (CLS) mov

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