medium · LSAT Reading Comprehension
The doctrine of precedent offers courts more than one way to handle an earlier ruling. Rather than follow a precedent outright, a court may 'distinguish' the case before it—identifying factual differences that make the earlier ruling inapplicable. This device usefully supplies the law with flexibility, allowing courts to avoid unjust results without formally overturning settled law. Yet the practice has a downside: in straining to draw distinctions, courts sometimes produce convoluted reasoning, and the resulting body of law can become confusing and difficult to apply with any clarity.
Which one of the following most accurately describes the passage's view of the practice of 'distinguishing' cases?
- It is a thoroughly effective means of securing legal flexibility, attended by no drawbacks at all.
- It is a valuable device that can nonetheless yield muddled and unclear legal outcomes.
- It is the leading source of injustice within the constitutional legal framework.
- It is an appellate procedure too costly in resources to be of any practical use.
- It is a flawed technique whose occasional benefits are always outweighed by the confusion it creates.
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