easy · LSAT Reading Comprehension
When judges wish to avoid following an inconvenient precedent without openly overruling it, they often 'distinguish' the earlier case by identifying factual differences between it and the case before them. Though this technique lets the law adapt without formal reversal, it frequently generates intricate, strained reasoning, and the resulting tangle of fine distinctions makes it harder for citizens to predict how the law will apply to them.
According to the passage, the practice of distinguishing cases often produces which one of the following?
- Tangled, hard-to-follow reasoning that diminishes the law's predictability.
- The prompt and formal overruling of decisions that have proven defective.
- A more efficient avenue by which legislatures may repair judicial mistakes.
- Greater certainty for both businesses and individuals about how law applies.
- Reasoning so plain that even non-lawyers can readily anticipate any future ruling.
Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →
More LSAT Reading Comprehension practice
- The author's use of the word "demonstrates" most strongly suggests that the author's attit
- Which one of the following most accurately describes the author's attitude toward true cri
- Which one of the following most accurately describes the author's attitude toward urban mi
- Which one of the following most accurately describes the author's attitude toward the pres
- Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main point of the passage?
- Which one of the following most accurately describes the primary purpose of the second par
- Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main point of the passage?
- Which one of the following most accurately describes the primary function of the second pa