Passage Excerpt..... Philosopher Denise Meyerson views

Question

Passage Excerpt..... 

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 to see contradictions where none exist, and that CLS overrrates 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 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 arbitraty or irrational. Meyerson denies that the existence of conflicting values makes a case iresolvable, and asserts taht at least some such cases can be resolved by ranking the conflicting values. For example, ........ 

In addition, says Meyerson, even when the two solutions are equally compelling, it does not follow that the choice between them must be irrational. .......... 


Last, Meyerson takes issues with the CLS charge that legal formalism...... 

The rest of the passage follows the same "tone". 

Question: 

The author's primary purpose in the passage is to 

1) Describe a challenge to a school of thought 
2) Refute claims made by various scholars 

I think "refute claims" is an extreme version of "describe a challenge", No? Also based on the "tone" of the passage what do you think is more appropriate?

mbamantra · Answer

I think the words in bolds make second more appropriate.
 
movement as seeking to  debunk  orthodox legal theory by  exposing  its contradictions

Supercat · Answer

I hestitate to give an opinion without seeing the whole passage, but based on what you posted, looks like a straightforward (1).

The Meyerson referred to in the article is challenging a school of thought (the CLS). The AUTHOR OF THE PASSAGE is merely describing Meyerson's work, exactly what (1) says.

kamal_tejnani · Answer

au contraire... I think second is more in sync with what the author is doing....

gmataquaguy · Answer

Supercat, you are absolutely correct. The OA is 1. Based on the verbiage you use, i appears to me that there wasnt even a question in your mind that it should be AC 1. I feel for the same trap that others did. Seeing the "strong verbiage" i opted for the latter. Could you walk me through what was going through you're mind after you read the passage and then saw the AC's. Was the word "describe a" the giveaway here? describe = Coz the passage talks about what the author says in a neutral tone; the guy who is getting riled up here is Meyerson. a = singular. The verbiage "refute" in AC 2 is wrong because the author doesnt directly contradict nor support CLS. She in a very neutral way says what Meyerson feels about the CLS theory. Super please feel free to support/negate what i've included along with any of your other comments. Ure input is always right on. I wish i had ure verbal skills. :-D

gmataquaguy · Answer

Another question from the same passage.

 Passage Excerpt...... 

Last, Meyerson takes issue with the CLS charge that legal formalism, the belief that ther eis 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 umambiguous does not demonstrate its legitmacy: 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 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 viewed as aprt of, not separate from, the rules of the game. 

20. Which 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.

Supercat · Answer

Sure, I'd say that's the key there. Just reading over the passage I note that it refers to someone called Meyerson, then refers to something called CLS, then notes a disagreement between those two. Really all you need is this one sentence from the 1st paragraph:

 However, Meyerson argues that CLS proponents tend to see contradictions where none exist 

So it's clear that the passage is in the voice of a 3rd party, talking about Meyerson versus CLS. And that's important to keep in mind. Meyerson has a certain opinion; but this passage was  not  written by Meyerson.

So, looking at the answer choices, (1) seems right. Skimming quickly back over the passage confirms that CLS does appear to be a "school of thought", and Meyerson definitely is "challenging" them. So (1) sounds good so far.

Looking at (2), two things that quickly make me dismiss it. Some key phrases reveal that the author of the passage himself is  not  refuting anything:  According to Meyerson  and  In addition, says Meyerson  .... So Meyerson might be right or wrong; the passage is just recounting Meyerson's opinion. Nothing is actually  refuted  by the passage itself.

(Just like, if you were telling one friend that another friend doesn't like them, you'd be careful to say  Bob  thinks you're a jerk, and  Bob  doesn't want you hanging around.... )

Secondly with (2), there is no mention of "various scholars". If "various scholars" were being refuted, I'd expect to see multiple individual names mentioned and specific text refuting their work by name. That is different than attacking an amorphous "school of thought". So that is just not what's going on with this passage.

gmat2me2 · Answer

SuperCat ...your analysis is brilliant....Thanks !

kamal_tejnani · Answer

good analysis Supercat.

thanks,

gmataquaguy · Answer

Supercat, could you please take a stab at this? Your analysis is greatly appreciated.

Supercat · Answer

I'd rule out B, C, & E:
Not (B), because there are not "two opponents of a certain viewpoint"
Not (C), as there is no new position or reconciliation
Not (E), as there are no "solutions" or summarizations.

(D) is closer -- a "belief" is discussed -- but I wouldn't say it is criticised on the basis of  practical consequences .

So, (A): 
 A criticism is identified  -- YES, the paragraph desribes Meyerson's criticism of one of the CLS tenets....

 and its plausibility is investigated  -- this sounds about right. Meyerson's criticism is stated; a possible objection is raised; but then Meyerson's reply to the objection is given. You could describe that back-and-forth as the investigation of the criticism's plausibility.

So I'd say (A).

gmataquaguy · Answer

I have some follow up questions about answer choice A and what was going through my mind with A and B, the choices i narrowed down my final answer to.

 With AC A: 

I really liked "criticism is identified". However i wasnt sure with "the criticism's plausibility being investigated". To me this phrase says "hey lets see whether the criticism holds any water - it is even feasible?" But the way the author describes Meyerson's rebuttal it goes beyond mere "plausibility" to something more definitive. By the end of the paragraph one gets the feeling that Meyerson's is probably correct about CLS folks wrongly slamming legal theory. 

 With AC B:  

I read the phrase "The different arguments made by two opponents" as referring to CLS protagonists (Opponent #1) VS Meyerson (Opponent #2). Both of them lobby for their version of the "legal formalism requires objectivism". 

ViewPoint: "Legal Formalism requires Objectivism"

The different arguments made by 2 parties regarding whether this is true or not is advanced.

Anything you can do to help me see why A is the correct answer and B is the wrong answer would be grealty appreciated. I'm not trying to be anal/argumentative or anything. I just want to correct my understanding. 

thanks a bunch,
gmataquaguy

Supercat · Answer

I believe that the phrase:
 two opponents  of  a certain viewpoint 
calls forth THREE parties: the viewpoint, one apponent of it, and a 2nd opponent of it.

That's what the preposition OF implies. If there were only two parties arguing a point, I'd expect the phrasing to be  about  or  regarding  or  concerning a certain viewpoint  , instead of  of .

And that alone is sufficient to dismiss this option, because there are not 3 parties.

Passage Excerpt..... Philosopher Denise Meyerson views

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