LSAT Explanations App
Offie Hours Subscription
Invite a Friend
Fee Waiver Scholarship
LSAT Test Dates
Free LSAT Resources
LSAT Message Board
September 2017 LSAT
Which one of the following is most analogous to the claim regarding judicial candor made in the second sentence of th...
on January 13, 2020
Why is C correct?
Create a free account to read and take part in
Already have an account?
on January 16, 2020
This is a pretty tough analogy question, which makes it a good example to learn from. I'll discuss my approach. First, we want to understand what Author B is saying in the given sentence. Then, we want to strip it of its specifics, such that we can apply it to a totally unrelated scenario.
Step 1. The phrase "essential prerequisite" is really important here. Basically, the author is saying that without judicial candor, the measures to prevent judicial abuse of power become ineffective. Judicial candor is a requirement for placing restraints on the judiciary. These limits are important, but what good are they without judicial candor?
Step 2. Try to state this reasoning simply and in your own words. Here is mine: "Something is necessary in order for something else to function" or "What good are Thing 2 and Thing 3 without Thing 1?" This sounds like rudimentary language, but it helps me find a good match.
Let's look at C.
Judicial candor = accurate data = necessary prerequisite/presumption
Limitations = relevance and sufficiency = important measures
Just like limits on the judiciary, relevance and sufficiency are important.
Without candor, these limits on the judiciary are ineffective.
Without accurate data, relevance and sufficiency don't matter.