In documents called judicial opinions, judges explain the reasoning behind their legal rulings, and in those explanations they sometimes cite...
GMAT Information and Ideas : (Ideas) Questions
In documents called judicial opinions, judges explain the reasoning behind their legal rulings, and in those explanations they sometimes cite and discuss historical and contemporary philosophers. Legal scholar and philosopher Anita L. Allen argues that while judges are naturally inclined to mention philosophers whose views align with their own positions, the strongest judicial opinions consider and rebut potential objections; discussing philosophers whose views conflict with judges' views could therefore ______
Which choice most logically completes the text?
allow judges to craft judicial opinions without needing to consult philosophical works.
help judges improve the arguments they put forward in their judicial opinions.
make judicial opinions more comprehensible to readers without legal or philosophical training.
bring judicial opinions in line with views that are broadly held among philosophers.
Step 1: Decode and Map the Passage
Create Passage Analysis Table
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| "In documents called judicial opinions, judges explain the reasoning behind their legal rulings, and in those explanations they sometimes cite and discuss historical and contemporary philosophers." |
|
| "Legal scholar and philosopher Anita L. Allen argues that while judges are naturally inclined to mention philosophers whose views align with their own positions," |
|
| "the strongest judicial opinions consider and rebut potential objections;" |
|
| "discussing philosophers whose views conflict with judges' views could therefore ______" |
|
Provide Passage Architecture & Core Elements
Main Point: Allen argues that while judges naturally cite philosophers who support their views, the strongest judicial opinions benefit from considering opposing perspectives.
Argument Flow: The passage establishes that judges cite philosophers in their opinions, then presents Allen's argument contrasting natural judicial tendencies with what makes opinions strongest, leading to a logical conclusion about the value of discussing conflicting philosophical views.
Step 2: Interpret the Question Precisely
This is a fill-in-the-blank question asking us to choose the best logical connector. The answer must create the right relationship between what comes before and after the blank.
Step 3: Prethink the Answer
- The logic flows: judges naturally cite philosophers who agree with them, but the strongest opinions consider and rebut objections
- So discussing philosophers whose views conflict would help judges do exactly what makes opinions strongest - it would help them consider and address opposing viewpoints more effectively
- The right answer should connect discussing conflicting philosophers to strengthening judicial arguments by helping judges engage with opposing perspectives
allow judges to craft judicial opinions without needing to consult philosophical works.
✗ Incorrect
- Suggests judges would not need to consult philosophical works at all
- Contradicts the passage's premise that citing philosophers is valuable
help judges improve the arguments they put forward in their judicial opinions.
✓ Correct
- Directly connects to making judicial arguments stronger
- Matches the logic: conflicting views lead to better consideration of objections which leads to improved arguments
- Aligns perfectly with Allen's point about the strongest opinions considering and rebutting objections
make judicial opinions more comprehensible to readers without legal or philosophical training.
✗ Incorrect
- Focuses on comprehensibility to general readers
- The passage is not concerned with accessibility to non-experts but with argumentative strength
bring judicial opinions in line with views that are broadly held among philosophers.
✗ Incorrect
- Suggests aligning with broad philosophical consensus
- The passage emphasizes considering objections, not conforming to popular views