Q16

[jackie8848]

Can anyone explain for me why (E) is the correct answer? Thank you.

[tzyc]

I'm not sure about this question too...
I guess both of this question's answer and the answer of Q19 are from the 3rd paragraph, but had hard time to understand what that part's situation is...
Could you explain this one?

Thank you

[noah]

This is a tough question.

The first challenge is to understand what's being asked. We know it's about the wills (from the 3rd paragraph) and specifically, under what circumstances might a substantive argument be considered. So, what would allow a court to consider the validity of a will based on the spirit of the law, not its formal rules.

In short, we want a situation in which we'd say "well, it's not technically legal, but it does get at what the law is supposed to be getting at."

(A) gives us a law that has some wiggle room on format. Do we see any reason to talk about the spirit of the law? No. In fact, the wiggle room makes it less likely.

(B) and (C) are simply a formal laws--why would we discuss the spirit?

(D) is even more formal than (B) and (C)! No wiggle room allowed!

(E) is what we want--the judge is stating that a medical emergency allows for a certain interpretation of a law. This opens up a whole bunch of substantive arguments ("Your Honor, it was not a physical medical emergency but it was a psychological one!")

[tzyc]

While I'm reviewing...
I got confused about this question again
The 3rd paragraph is about formal reasons (eg. England) and says "precludes from consideration substantive arguments in favor of the will's validity or enforcement" so it prevents substantive arguments right?
Substantive arguments is talked in the 2nd paragraph...
Does the 3rd paragraph define what "will" is or something regarding "will"?
(eg. they define no vehicle will be taken in public park)
or just the normal usage defined in any dictionary?
Is E correct because under medical emergency they may not be able to have written witness but can see their will based on the circumstance?
This question asks the concept of 2nd paragraph right?
If it's wrong, could you tell me which part of the passage we can use to support E?

Thank you!

[noah]

While I'm reviewing...
I got confused about this question again
The 3rd paragraph is about formal reasons (eg. England) and says "precludes from consideration substantive arguments in favor of the will's validity or enforcement" so it prevents substantive arguments right?
Substantive arguments is talked in the 2nd paragraph...
Does the 3rd paragraph define what "will" is or something regarding "will"?
(eg. they define no vehicle will be taken in public park)
or just the normal usage defined in any dictionary?
Is E correct because under medical emergency they may not be able to have written witness but can see their will based on the circumstance?
This question asks the concept of 2nd paragraph right?
If it's wrong, could you tell me which part of the passage we can use to support E?

Thank you!

Just because there's a reference to the 3rd paragraph, we're not limited to just information there. In fact, since the question stem asks about substantive arguments, we have to rely on our knowledge gathered from other places in the passage.

In short, we want a situation in which we'd say "well, it's not technically legal, but it does get at what the law is supposed to be getting at regarding wills."

[ytian03]

Thanks a lot. But I am still confused.

One of my other book says, E is correct because that's the only situation where "legality of the rule"(line 45 in pr3) is not established.
I find no clue to see this question talking about pr3 as actually asking us to find the answer in pr2 just as you explained. I guess I agree with the other explanation that it's a question about the only situations under which English law is going to consider substantive reasons ----when legal rule is not clearly established, or the legality of the rule" is in question.

That said, though, I still don't understand why answer E is a situation of that kind.
I chose A, where there's no legal rule so that it cannot be clearly established.

Could anybody explain on that?

[callmejinny]

Thanks for giving tips on the standards to eliminating the wrong answers.
I chose (A), but after reading your post, I see that A, B, C, and D all still require a written witness.

In case of (A), even if there is no stipulated form as to how to write the witness (?), the law clearly requires it per se, and therefore, if a witness is not written (?), then the validity of the will still be questioned.

In case of (E), even if the law requires a written witness, this law "can be interpreted to allow a verbal (does not need to be written!) witness" under medical emergencies. Since the purpose of the law (the substantive reasons for it) would be to prove that there was a witness observing the will, (E) would allow this purpose to be considered even if the law strictly states that the will must be written.

I hope my post helps clarifying it a bit.

[t-haga-k42]

Dear Manhattan Prep,

Could you please give me some examples, if possible, of other questions or passages that ask this same kind of question?
This was very difficult for me and I would like to focus my practice on this kind of hard inference.

Thank you very much in advance.