Q12

[camerojg]

Hello, I'm struggling to definitively eliminate choice B. I take the "point of view" in the choice to mean objectivism, and based on lines 44-45, where it says the "legal reformers propose replacing such abstract discourse with powerful personal stories," feel that B is adequately supported.

The best explanations I have for eliminating B are 1) "eradicating" is too strong, and 2) eliminating objectivism isn't a "central component of legal reform." I'm not really convinced by either, particularly the latter because practically the entire passage deals with objectivism.

Anyone have solid reasons for eliminating B? Thanks in advance for the help!

[maryadkins]

I think the key here is to remember what objectivism is, which is absence of point of view (lines 12-15). That's where "point of view" appears in the passage--in regard to its absence from objectivism--so that's where we want to look for its relevance and meaning in the answer choices.

Objectivists don't like point of view because they believe there's just a neutral description of facts that exists apart from POV. Bell and Matsuda are on the other side of the scale. They like personal narratives, all of which come with and from a particular point of view. So they are pro-POV, not anti-POV.

Hope this helps. Let me know if it's still unclear.

[WaltGrace1983]

In addition to that, I also thought about the word "particular." To me - and I hope I am okay in assuming this - the word "particular" is pointing towards a point of view that believes X. However, the goal of legal reform is not to get rid of only certain points of view. The goal is to include all points of view, supposedly of everyone involved. It is more inclusive while the old objectivist way was much more exclusive.

This is essentially what (D) states. (D) is saying that Williams, Bell, and Matsuda want a variety! They want people both educated and uneducated in legal discourse because only this will provide the most complete representation of what happened.

[episcopoandrew]

I originally picked C for this one, but now I realize that WB & M aren't giving equal access to training; they're helping people without formal legal training to overcome this disadvantage. They also aren't 'manipulating' legal discourse. E is certainly wrong since they're not teaching people to appreciate legal history. I thought B was wrong because they want people to share the emotional stories with their particular points of view. A seemed wrong since I don't know what the latest developments in psychology are besides that people bring biases and experiences to their recollections of events. And we also don't know of any new philosophical ideas that challenge objectivism that WB & M are applying.