Q14

[WaltGrace1983]

This question is asking about what the author would say about precedent. This concept is talked about in the final paragraph and the author has some interesting insights: it is a "pure" example of institutional authority that also has the ability to introduce intellectual authority when a previous decision is badly reasoned, leading one to the main conclusion that court systems are predominantly institutional with a bit of intellectual authority.

(A) There are two things wrong. (1) is the word "only." We don't have any support for this being the "only" tool that should be used. (2) is that this precedent will somehow help in achieving "purely intellectual" authority. According to the passage, purely intellectual authority for the court systems don't seem all that feasible.

(B) The passage does seem to say that precedent conflicts with intellectual authority (50). However, the word I have a problem with is "invariably." This would imply that precedent - an institutional authority - is never ALSO intellectual, meaning that precedent lacks well-reasoned decisions. I find this very unsupported and very strong. However, without the word invariably, it seems like it could be correct. What do you all think?

(C) Yes! We know that precedent is "purely institutional" in nature. However, we also know that intellectual authority can step in at any point and take these "institutional" decisions and overturn them, ultimately favoring the court's "intellectual authority."

(D) It doesn't seem to prevent judges from reconsidering decisions. In fact, the passage openly says that the courts DO reconsider decisions.

(E) There is no support for saying that it "should be abandoned" and saying that it "lacks intellectual authority" goes against the author's main point that overturning precedent is a premiere example of intellectual authority!

[YufeiR103]

I think the main phrases here are "analogous concept" and "crucial distinction", which mains though the "doctrine of precedent" is similar to the case in the precedent paragraph, but the "doctrine of precedent" is different from the former one because the intellectual authority is introduced in certain cases.