Could any one help analyze why C is correct? I find "intentional vagueness and adaptness" in the passage but don't understand how it relates to statutes "frustrates the application of the system"?
I found A corresponds to line 26-29 and B to line 50-54 and choose B as relating to frustrating the system application.
Could any one please explicate Q27? Thanks a lot!
LSAT Forum
2 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- ohthatpatrick
-
Thanks Received: 3808
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: April 01st, 2011
- This post thanked 1 time.
Re: Q27
I think the only time the passage mentions "statutes" is in 29-32, in which it says "the text of a statute may be deliberately left undefined so as to allow the law to be adapted to unforeseen circumstances".
So from that snippet, we can justify the paraphrases of "vague" (undefined) and "adaptability".
To make sense of how that relates to the question stem's notion of "frustrating the application of computerized legal reasoning systems", just think about what that whole second paragraph was talking about.
Lines 17-23 describe how early legal reasoning systems worked. Lines 23-25 tell us that these systems "underestimated the problems of interpretation ...".
Following that, we get a couple examples of problems of interpretation, and then the word "Indeed" attaches the notion about how statutes are written to the aforementioned problem of interpretation.
You said:
>I found A corresponds to line 26-29 and B to line 50-54 >and choose B as relating to frustrating the system >application.
How do lines 26-29 relate to complexity of syntax? 'Syntax' means the order of words in a sentence. 'Syntax' doesn't have anything to do with the meaning of words or ambiguous definitions.
"John carefully started the car"
vs.
"John started the car carefully"
is an example of a change in syntax.
(B) sounds somewhat like the problem described in 48-55. However, the problem isn't that relevant precedents aren't available, as (B) suggests. The problem is that these computerized reasoning systems don't know what makes a certain case relevant to another. Instead, the programmers have to tell the reasoning systems what qualities to look for in order to assess a precedent's relevance.
More importantly, though, this problem computers have with analyzing past cases has nothing to do with "statutes" (written law), which is what the question is about.
I hope this helps. Let me know if anything is unclear.
So from that snippet, we can justify the paraphrases of "vague" (undefined) and "adaptability".
To make sense of how that relates to the question stem's notion of "frustrating the application of computerized legal reasoning systems", just think about what that whole second paragraph was talking about.
Lines 17-23 describe how early legal reasoning systems worked. Lines 23-25 tell us that these systems "underestimated the problems of interpretation ...".
Following that, we get a couple examples of problems of interpretation, and then the word "Indeed" attaches the notion about how statutes are written to the aforementioned problem of interpretation.
You said:
>I found A corresponds to line 26-29 and B to line 50-54 >and choose B as relating to frustrating the system >application.
How do lines 26-29 relate to complexity of syntax? 'Syntax' means the order of words in a sentence. 'Syntax' doesn't have anything to do with the meaning of words or ambiguous definitions.
"John carefully started the car"
vs.
"John started the car carefully"
is an example of a change in syntax.
(B) sounds somewhat like the problem described in 48-55. However, the problem isn't that relevant precedents aren't available, as (B) suggests. The problem is that these computerized reasoning systems don't know what makes a certain case relevant to another. Instead, the programmers have to tell the reasoning systems what qualities to look for in order to assess a precedent's relevance.
More importantly, though, this problem computers have with analyzing past cases has nothing to do with "statutes" (written law), which is what the question is about.
I hope this helps. Let me know if anything is unclear.
2 posts Page 1 of 1