Passage Discussion

[LSAT-Chang]

Would the two sides of the scale be something like:

Side A -- Common-law doctrine good (18th century lawyers)

Side B -- Bentham's nonexclusion principle better (author -- although he/she devotes one full paragraph about concerns regarding the nonexclusion principle)

[timmydoeslsat]

PM your email please.

[LSAT-Chang]

Would you agree with my very brief scale?? =)

[timmydoeslsat]

Would the two sides of the scale be something like:

Side A -- Common-law doctrine good (18th century lawyers)

Side B -- Bentham's nonexclusion principle better (author -- although he/she devotes one full paragraph about concerns regarding the nonexclusion principle)

That is a good job. There is a minor argument going on with what Bentham wanted admitted as evidence law and what was the norm during the time of the 18th century.

I would go with:

Evidence law very limited in scope of allowance
- 18th century lawyers
- Defendants not allowed to testify

vs

Bentham's nonexclusion principle
- Virtually all evidence tending to prove/disprove should be admissible.
- Author uses term revolutionary, so sides with him to a point.
- Author cautious about competing social interests being able to override desire for relevant evidence




As long as you realize that the author recognizes Bentham as doing a great thing, but with conditions, you are on your way.

[maryadkins]

Good discussion and the scales work. Agree with timmydoeslsat that you definitely want to make sure to understand that the author advocates a watered down version of Bentham's philosophy. (The correct answer to the first question in the passage brings this into play.) So the author is: pro-Bentham, with qualifications.

[missbenyamin]

I saw the scale a bit differently.

1:
Bentham's non-exclusion principle

2:
Author's modified version of Bentham's non-exclusion principle (the author qualifies Bentham's non-exclusion principle by stating the importance of factoring in the following two points: a) the idea that some kinds of evidence are "inherently unreliable," b) situations in which competing social interests might override the desire for relevant evidence.)

Would it be wrong to exclude the 18th century view from our scale?

[keonheecho]

Hi,

I definitely got the vibe that the author did agree with Bentham with certain qualifications, but I'm having a hard time pinpointing exact words/phrases that make this apparent. I just want to make sure that come test day I can be sure of the author's tone, so any help would be appreciated.

I can tell that the passage starts off with the author disliking the traditional well-established laws, but just because the author talks about a proposed solution doesn't necessarily mean that he supports it in any way, right? I've seen some passages where the author talks about a problem, then talks about a proposed solution, and then destroys that solution as well.

I thought then that maybe it was the word 'revolutionary' (line 27), but does revolutionary always imply a positive tone?

Also, I saw in the last paragraph that the author talks about how modern evidence law soon prevailed after Bentham's death.
I also noticed how the author talks about how Bentham's principle is the main thrust of the current outlook (last paragraph), but to me it seemed like the author was only talking about Bentham's popularity, which doesn't seem to necessarily mean he agrees with Bentham

Are any of these valid reasons why we can say that the author does like Bentham's ideas to an extent? Are there other hints that I also missed? Thank you!

[maryadkins]

Good analysis overall. "Revolutionary" I would call a positive term.

The tone is neutral to positive, which is why the answer choice is positive on Q23. The other answer choices aren't even on this spectrum. I prefer to think of authorial tones as spectrums for this very reason.

Hope this helps.

[wxpttbh]

Can someone explain the last sentence for me? It is a bit difficult for me.

[ohthatpatrick]

Bentham wanted all evidence to be admissible.

Modern standards start from the position of "all relevant evidence is admissible" but allow for some evidence to be disqualified if there are clear grounds for doing so.

A "proviso" is kind of like "a clause in a contract that states a certain exception or explains what to do otherwise in a certain hypothetical circumstance".

Since this proviso DOES allow us to disqualify evidence, Bentham might be irked by evidence that gets excluded.

But the spirit of Bentham's argument, "include as much evidence as possible" still remains.

The rule is not literally include all evidence, but the presumption (the default point of view) is that evidence WILL be admissible.

It's sort of the like the "innocent until proven guilty" presumption .... "admissible until proven otherwise".