Passage Discussion

[shirando21]

what is the relationship btw P1 and P2?

I know P3 is a new view which contradicts the view in P2 in how jurisprudence of common law should be studied. The author agrees with Peter Goodrich in P3 in that common law should be studied as a continually developing tradition rather than a set of rules.

In P2, the author does not like the way of academic study of jurisprudence which seldom treated common law as a constantly evolving phenomenon rooted in history and explains the theoretical and political reasons.

what role does P1 plays?

[maryadkins]

I'd call P1 background. Without P1, you don't know how to understand P2 unless you already know what common law is.

[gplaya123]

Quick question.
Question 13 implies that modern study don't care about common law's history that much;
but isn't it concerned with history, just that modern study don't treat common law's history as an EVOLVING phenomenon?

[sami.adhik]

Hello all!

I am really struggling to figure out this passage! I cannot seem to even understand the main idea, or really anything in the passage! Please help me understand how I can figure out paragraphs like this!

[keonheecho]

Hi,

So the author disagrees with the approach of the study of jurisprudence, but does he agree with Goodrich, or is he neutral towards Goodrich? Thank you

[ohthatpatrick]

Early on in a passage (1st paragraph), we're trying to generate predictions about what the main point will be.

Main Point = Topic + Purpose

The first couple sentence give us the topic, so we should slow down and form a mental picture. This is about England, law, lawyers, law students, common law, history.

Okay, so I'm picturing British parliamentary rooms with stuffy aristocratic white men wearing white barrister wigs. But then I have to picture young Brits, in law school, learning about that world.

The topic, as stressed by "burden" in the first sentence, seems to be how much common law has to do with history.

What IS common law? Oh, good that 1st sentence defines it. It's an UNWRITTEN (?!) code of laws? That's weird. They don't write their laws in England. It law is derived from custom and precedent.

Okay, well that makes sense now why history has so much to do with it. If it's not based on stuff written down, but rather on custom and precedent, then it IS history.

---- Don't worry, I'm not planning to go this deep sentence by sentence. What I'm stressing here is how important it is to slowly unpack the first couple sentences, to make sure you've allowed your brain enough time to warm up to the topic and put some meat on its bones.

2nd sentence - still stressing how much British law students have to worry about and study history.

3rd sentence - still stressing history's influence on law / law school.

4th sentence - summary sentence ... we get it, history is REALLY IMPORTANT to studying British common law.

==== 2nd P

1st Sentence - Slam on the brakes. "But/yet/however" are the most important words in Reading Comp. On about 40-50% of passages, the main point begins with these words.

I know this Turning Point is taking me from the background of the 1st P to the foreground of what the author actually wants to discuss in this passage. I need to understand how the last sentence of the 1st P contrasts with the first sentence of the 2nd P.

"Academic study of jurisprudence"? What does that mean? I guess it still means British law school, or something like the topic of the 1st P.

So lines 12-18 are saying, even though history is CRAZY important to British common law, the academic study does NOT seem to recognize the historical importance.

Boom! Main Point unlocked. 100 points.
Topic = academic study of jurisprudence in England
Purpose = discuss a problem / criticize (it fails to see how important history is)

From here on out, I can read mainly to confirm the Main Point I think I've solved ... to monitor what topics are covered where, structurally ... to look out for any left turns that make me slow down and reconsider.

18-21: even the stuff that ALMOST gets history right, still gets it wrong.

21-23: two reasons for this problem, 1. theoretical and 2. political

23-30: Theoretical reasons (try to understand but feel free to bail if it's confusing)

31-39: Political reasons (same)

===== P3

Pause/Evaluate: the author's Purpose seems to be pointing out a problem with the academic study of jurisprudence (fails to appreciate history). The author has supplied two Reasons for the Problem.

Anticipate: Possible solution to the problem?

40-43: Hmmm, new dude. Is he with author or against? Sounds like he's pro-history, so I'll say he's WITH the author.

43-54: Yeah ... small stuff ... this dude is basically agreeing with the author and saying that law can't be understood properly without paying attention to history.


So in terms of big picture, the only reading skill that REALLY mattered is that when we hit the first sentence of the 2nd P that we realize we're getting the main point / purpose.

How did we know this? We're used to RC passages starting with background or other people's points of view and then pivoting into the AUTHOR's focus via some but / yet / however / recently.

Even without that cheap trick, starting a paragraph with "YET", indicates that the 2nd P makes a contrast with the 1st P. So we have to make sure we understand that contrast.

Everything after that moment is just unpacking the idea that it's dumb (but understandable) why academic studies de-emphasize history, and it would be better if they DID appreciate history.

[CCHOL308]

I am having problem with this passage below (bold parts).

In England the burden of history weighs heavily on common law, that unwritten code of time-honored laws derived largely from English judicial custom and precedent. Students of contemporary British law are frequently required to study medieval cases, to interpret archaic Latin maxims, or to confront doctrinal principles whose validity is based solely on their being part of the “timeless reason” of the English legal tradition. Centuries-old custom serves as the basis both for the divisions of law school subject matter and for much of the terminology of legal redress.

1. For the first bold part, my interpretation is "Student are required to learn medieval cases in order to challenge doctrinal principles that are considered valid only by the fact that they existed for long time (timeless reason)."

2. For the second bold part, my understanding is "Centuries old custom is a basis that makes law school's subject diverse. It is also a basis that makes many legal terminologies to have new legal meanings."

Am I understanding those correctly? Please help!

[ohthatpatrick]

I wouldn't quite endorse either of your paraphrases. Focus on the function of this snippet, because the two lines you're asking about are just trying to put specific meat on the bones of that bolded general claim.

In England the burden of history weighs heavily on common law, that unwritten code of time-honored laws derived largely from English judicial custom and precedent. Students of contemporary British law are frequently required to study medieval cases, to interpret archaic Latin maxims, or to confront doctrinal principles whose validity is based solely on their being part of the “timeless reason” of the English legal tradition. Centuries-old custom serves as the basis both for the divisions of law school subject matter and for much of the terminology of legal redress.

confront doctrinal principles whose validity is based solely on their being part of the “timeless reason” of the English legal tradition
This is the 3rd ingredient in a list, so it will be grammatically and logically similar to the other two ingredients.

Where's my support that "burden of history weighs heavily on common law"?
1. they gotta study medieval cases
2. they gotta study archaic Latin maxims
3. they gotta study doctrinal principles that are justified by the "timeless reason" of tradition


I think you were reading too much into 'confront', but it just meant a neutral sense of 'encounter', not an aggressive sense of 'challenge'.

The last idea is ALSO just trying to provide more evidence that "burden of history" weighs heavily.

Centuries-old custom serves as the basis both for the divisions of law school subject matter and for much of the terminology of legal redress.


This is just saying "how we organized the curriculum in law school" and "lots of the legal terms we use" come from centuries-old custom.