LSATMax and COVID-19:
Amid these difficult times, we're lowering the price on all courses.
Free LSAT Practice
LSAT Practice Test
LSAT Practice Test Videos
eBook: The Road to 180
Law School Top 100
LSAT Test Proctor
LSAT Logic Games
Apple App Store
Digital LSAT Simulator
Campus Rep Internship
Fee Waiver Scholarship
LSAT Test Dates
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 at 02:27PM
Why is C correct?
on January 16 at 03:41AM
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.
Posting to the forum is only allowed for members with active accounts.