Q10

[skapur777]

I felt like (E), which is the correct answer, was a unsupported. It seems to me that, so far, the study of jurisprudence has been treated largely academically, with nary a look into the historical context.

And while I know that Goodrich believes that one must continuously rewrite the common law texts to adapt them to contemporary legal circumstances, isn't there a difference between what Goodrich wants and what he agrees WILL happen?

I dunno if Peter would agree that the text inherited by future generations will actually differ...he probably hopes so but the passage gives me no reason for such an optimistic answer choice!

I thought the LSAT, as they have so many times, were just trying to be clever, but adding a detail creep that changes the nature of the answer so I eliminated it thinking I was on to their game.

Alas...

[giladedelman]

Thanks for your post!

Two things. First of all, I get that you were suspicious of answer (E), but is there really a better choice here? I think not:

(A) - Goodrich certainly never says common law is a historical "relic." Rather, he thinks it is continually updated and reinterpreted.

(B) - Current state of incoherence? Way out of scope. Not close.

(C) - Goodrich never says anything about justness or the public's beliefs.

(D) - There's no indication that Goodrich finds common law's application to be "limited."

So those four are pretty terrible. Now, I am not trying to scold you here. My point is that sometimes, especially on RC, we're going to have to pick an answer that we don't love. If our choice is between one iffy answer and four answers that have zero support, we have to pick the iffy one.

I happen to think answer (E) is just fine, actually. Goodrich doesn't say that common law should be reinterpreted, as you suggest. Actually, if we look at the passage, it appears that he believes this process is actually happening:

Legal historian Peter Goodrich has argued, however, that common law is most fruitfully studied as a continually developing tradition rather than as a set of rules.


Notice that he says it's most fruitfully studied as a developing tradition. Not that it should become one, but that it already is, so we should study it as such.

The concept of tradition, for Goodrich, implies not only the preservation and transmission of existing forms, but also the continuous rewriting of those forms to adapt them to contemporary legal circumstances."

This is Goodrich's view of British legal history, not his desire for how it should look. So he would agree that common law will look different in the future.

Hope that helps!

[zainrizvi]

Can someone explain what those last 2 sentences mean? How can he believe that they will be preserved and transmitted, but also continuously adapted??? Doesn't preserved mean not altered?

Or is he thinking that the preserved ones will be transmitted, as well as the ones that are adapted....thus the common law text as a whole is altered

[ryanrego93]

Thanks for your post!

Two things. First of all, I get that you were suspicious of answer (E), but is there really a better choice here? I think not:

(A) - Goodrich certainly never says common law is a historical "relic." Rather, he thinks it is continually updated and reinterpreted.

(B) - Current state of incoherence? Way out of scope. Not close.

(C) - Goodrich never says anything about justness or the public's beliefs.

(D) - There's no indication that Goodrich finds common law's application to be "limited."

So those four are pretty terrible. Now, I am not trying to scold you here. My point is that sometimes, especially on RC, we're going to have to pick an answer that we don't love. If our choice is between one iffy answer and four answers that have zero support, we have to pick the iffy one.

I happen to think answer (E) is just fine, actually. Goodrich doesn't say that common law should be reinterpreted, as you suggest. Actually, if we look at the passage, it appears that he believes this process is actually happening:

Legal historian Peter Goodrich has argued, however, that common law is most fruitfully studied as a continually developing tradition rather than as a set of rules.


Notice that he says it's most fruitfully studied as a developing tradition. Not that it should become one, but that it already is, so we should study it as such.

The concept of tradition, for Goodrich, implies not only the preservation and transmission of existing forms, but also the continuous rewriting of those forms to adapt them to contemporary legal circumstances."

This is Goodrich's view of British legal history, not his desire for how it should look. So he would agree that common law will look different in the future.

Hope that helps!

I agree with the person before, just because he thinks its most fruitfully studied as a continually developing tradition doesn't mean he will agree that it will happen in the future. So I am confused why he would agree with E when it seems that it is being studied without cultural history, etc.

[andrewgong01]

^ I think Choice "E" is supported by the last sentence that says "continuous rewriting" which would imply future generations see something different since it is re-written. That said, on the test, I originally thought that rewriting does not imply change since the history does not change but as time goes today becomes history so there are some changes, always. I understand your point about the prediction part (Yes, it is one thing to believe this as your vision but how do we know this will actually happen in the future when the status quo is so fixated on not studying it via history) but I think what this question hinges on is not how common law is viewed by others but what is the state of the common law on a fundamental innate level? Also, I think the other thing is that the passage and status quo does not deny that the common law is changing; rather , what is happening is that the way it is taught ignores this "change" part. In other words, the change still occurs but our teaching of it gives a distorted picture that it is not something that changes.


I chose "A" because I thought teaching it as a relic of the history of the English people is also teaching it through a traditional historical lens the entire passage was advocating. I think the issue comes down if relic of history of the english people== history+ tradition. I personally thought it was because in P1 the history of the English people was thrown around and talked about as if it was part of the history and tradition of the UK.