From the discussion of wills in the third paragraph it can be inferred that substantive arguments as to the validity ...
gmaramaraMarch 16, 2020
Had trouble understanding this question
I had difficulty understanding what this question was asking, because they pointed to the third paragraph talking about formal (favored by England) but the question stem was talking about substansive. How do I break down this question into a simpler format so I don't get confused by the answer choices?
Reply
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
I see what you are saying. It can be confusing when the passage is directing us to one topic but asking us about another. Unfortunately, I would say that there is no concrete way to break this down into a simpler format, but rather taking a step back and thinking about the items in the passage in broader terms may be helpful.
I can walk you through how I would look at it for example:
The question is asking about whether substantive arguments can come into play regarding the will under different scenarios (as presented in the answer choices).
From the passage, we know the will was missing a written witness.
We know, broadly speaking, that substantive reasoning allows flexibility, while formal reasoning is rigid. This is the level that I would break this down. I do not need to concern myself with details, nor with any complicated words/ideas.
If a judge rules that medical emergencies may allow for a verbal witness, then it is fully possible that substantive reasoning may come into play for the will. So long as there was a medical emergency, this may be enough for the will to be enforceable.
My overall advice to you regarding questions like these in RC is to spare yourself the trouble of thinking in complicated terms, but just using the big picture ideas you would have hopefully caught on to in the passage.
I hope this helps. Please let me know if you have any other questions.