Q25

[JacquelineD789]

I chose B for #25, because although the author mentions both specific performance and monetary compensation, it seems as though the author is rooting for monetary compensation. So, I find it strange that E is the correct answer because I don't feel like the main purpose was simply "identifying some criteria."

[andrewgong01]

I chose B for #25, because although the author mentions both specific performance and monetary compensation, it seems as though the author is rooting for monetary compensation. So, I find it strange that E is the correct answer because I don't feel like the main purpose was simply "identifying some criteria."

The author does not really say we should always do one or the other. In fact, the author even concedes on on Line 15 that sometimes it has to be a specific performance solution. This is further supported on line 24 where it is described as the "best remedy". The key is that the author says that it is if money can not really compensate / be ascertained then we should do specific performance. However, in many instances, such as those in P3, money compensation is enough and we should not use specific performance to solve those issues. Thus, the author is not really "rooting for monetary compensation" ; rather the author is just saying there are some cases where money is good and other cases that we should use specific performance.

Moreover, in regards to choice "B", the passage does not argue for a new legal measure. We do not see any calls for implementing a new standard or any mention of introducing some new legal measures. If anything, everything in the passage already exists and the author is merely stating when each remedy ( specific performance vs money) is the best. We can think of this as a degree issue in that "argue for an implmenetation" is way too strong as we are not calling for change and the "changes" are not "new legal measures"

Lines 9-13 do seem to support "B" where the author is stating that we should use money but 1) the author never dismisses the use of specific performance completely and 2) there are no new legal measures being proposed for implementation. If anything all the legal measures that the passage covers have already been implemented; we are just interested in knowing when to appeal to each legal measure, which is what "E" says better.

In regards to "E" , P2 talks about when specific performance is in order (e.g. when money compensation is hard to ascertain). On the other hand, P3 talks about when to avoid specific performance (e.g. employment disputes to avoid working for your hostile enemy) and appeal to the financial compensation method instead. Hence, it is from here we can infer that the author has produced some criteria on when to appeal to them, which is what E describes.

Other Choices:
A) We see no prediction unless we are talking about the hypoethicals in P3. However, if that is the case, this is too narrow in scope in that it only covers one of the two remedies

C) I left it on my first pass but it is a bit unclear as to what "group of interrelated legal procedures" refer to. Also, are solutions to court cases aptly described as a legal procedure? Seems debatable and rather imprecise for an answer choice. However, even if we by pass these issues on what it refers to the main point of the passage was not about the differences between the two remedies in itself (i.e.. how is specific performance different than money); rather, the passage is on the differences on when to appeal to each of the two remedies

D) "Generate a guidelines" is a bit too strong in that we don't really have a clear guideline that spells out exactly when to use what, albeit we have somewhat of a general guide on when to appeal to the specific performance remedy and when to appeal to the financial compensation method. Second, this answer choice is talking about examining evidence; however, we are concerned with the outcome of the examination of evidence on how to best close a dispute; not how to best understand a dispute.