medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
Legal Scholar: When a law is ambiguous, judges should interpret it in the way that best aligns with the legislature's intent at the time of the law's passage. Just as a literary critic seeks to understand a poem by researching the author's life and letters, a judge must use historical records to clarify the meaning of a statute.
The legal scholar's argument proceeds by
- Likening interpretation in one domain to interpretation in another in order to bolster a recommended approach.
- Setting out a single general rule and then insisting that it be applied to every legal case without any exception.
- Faulting the prevailing interpretive method as inadequate before putting forward a clearly superior substitute for it.
- Pointing to assembled historical evidence to show that judges have invariably followed one fixed interpretive rule.
- Defining one ambiguous statutory term and then deducing from it the term's single correct legal meaning.
Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →
More LSAT Logical Reasoning practice
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from these statements?
- The question type just described is best identified as which one of the following?
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from these premises?
- Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the authors' conclusion?
- Which one of the following can be validly inferred from the two conditionals above?
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that the argument
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument
- Which one of the following most accurately describes the relationship the statement establ