The writing styles in works of high literary quality are not well suited to the avoidance of misinterpretation. For t...

Irina on July 15, 2019

@Jessica,
Let's briefly summarize the passage.
The writing style in works of high literally quality is prone to misinterpretation. For this reason, the writing in judicial decisions that are intended as determinations of law is rarely of high literary quality. It is common to find writing of high literary quality in dissenting opinion.

How do we resolve this discrepancy?

Before we even look at the answer choices, we can think of a possible explanation. The author argues that the writing that determines law must be clear, whereas the writing of dissenting opinions is of high literal quality that is prone to misinterpretation. It must be true then that dissenting opinions are not used to determine the law. Let's see if we can find an answer choice that matches our conclusion.

(A) is irrelevant, it does not matter how many judges write/ influence a dissenting opinion
(B) is irrelevant, it talks about legal opinions in general not dissenting opinions
(C) this is the correct answer choice as it explains the discrepancy. It does not matter is the dissenting opinion is prone to misinterpretation as long as it is not used to determine the law
(D) is irrelevant, it is entirely out of scope of this question, it makes no difference what judges read
(E) is irrelevant, it talks about legal opinions in general not dissenting opinions

Let me know if this helps.