I struggled a lot with this one. I ended up choosing E because it seemed like the author was more interested in the defense of the attacks made by various proponents of the critical school (various scholars), then just mentioning the challenge to the orthodox position of law. Why is D better?
Reply
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
Thanks for the question! So remember, we’re being asked here for the author’s primary purpose in the passage. So we need to look at this from the author’s perspective, as opposed to from Meyerson’s perspective. And in this passage, the author is actually not doing any kind of advocating or arguing, the author is basically just describing what Meyerson thinks, without taking sides themselves. So (E) is wrong because it’s not the author who’s refuting claims made by various scholars, even though the author is describing Meyerson’s refutations of claims made by various scholars. What the author is doing, at its heart, is description.
(D), on the other hand, tells us that the author is describing a challenge to a school of thought. And this is exactly what’s occurring. The school of thought here would be the Critical Legal Studies movement, and the challenge to that school of thought would be Meyerson. And the author is describing Meyerson’s arguments, so (D) fits better than (E) does. Remember, we need to focus on what the author herself does.
Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.
