Q26

[gplaya123]

Some one please check my work real quick.

I was stuck between A and D and iffy about E.

So A is basically the paraphrase of line 34 - 40 so it's right.

Now D was really tempting because the half of the question was right but then it went off of the track:

unacceptable means of attempting to interpret the S.A constitution...

this is wrong right?

The scholars were concerned about how the judges, due to lack of constitution of S.A of their own, will use other countries' bill of rights to interpret the laws which could result in bad things.

D is essentially saying as if South Africa has its own constitution, which is untrue.

E is wrong because it may be true and is supported by the first part of 2nd paragraph this isn't the concern of scholars.

well you know what I might as well explain B and C as well...


B is wrong because it's too strong: scholars were never concerned how it would promote mistrust

C is wrong because it's also too strong: impossible to interpret? nope

[ohthatpatrick]

I think you mostly nailed your breakdown of the right and wrong answer.

Keep in mind, throughout Reading Comp, that questions that ask
what can be inferred
what is implied
what is suggested
what would X be most likely to agree with

will almost always have trap answers that are broken for 1 or more of these three reasons:
OUT OF SCOPE
EXTREME
"fake" COMPARISONS

When we see Q26 is asking about "some scholars" from the 2nd paragraph, our job is to re-read the context, which would be 34-43.

Now we just need to pick an answer that paraphrases what we read.

The only part of your explanation I would add to or change is your objections to (D) and (E). South Africa DOES have a constitution; line 33 says so and other lines imply it (they call South Africa a "constitutional democracy" in the first sentence).

I think you may have been reacting to the phrase "constitutional void", which didn't refer to the lack of a constitution, but rather a lack of legal precedent when it comes to interpreting that constitution.

So what's the real reason for ditching (D)? Extreme language.
"Unacceptable" is too harsh, in fact lines 39-43 make it clear that the scholars are hopeful that S.A. will use international examples wisely while adapting them to meet South African needs.

What's the issue with (E)? Fake comparison -- we can't justify that other bills of rights are less general than South Africa's ... and Extreme language -- we can't justify that interpreting other countries' bills of rights is unlikely to prove helpful.

Nice work!

[ahn2014]

Isn't (A) too strong?

The passage just said that judges 'may' misuse foreign law, 'may' blindly follow the interpretations.
And, there is no mention that the scholar made any argument.

On the contrary, according to the answer (A), the scholar argued that reliance of judges 'must be tempered'.

I appreciate if anyone helps me.

[ohthatpatrick]

You're definitely right to worry about "must be tempered". MUST is super duper red flag.

Saying one thing must be tempered by something else is pretty weak, though. "To temper" is basically "to soften, to mitigate, to stay balanced". Telling someone to temper their judgment is kinda just saying "be moderate ... be nuanced ... do NOT take a hard, inflexible stance."

It sounds like you're looking for a strength of language match by comparing "must" to things like "may".

But the real support for (A) comes from words like "warn", "misuse", and "blindly".

Scholars WARN that judges may MISUSE foreign law ... BLINDLY following other countries' interpretations.

The negative in 'warn' and 'misuse' tells us that these scholars hold this opinion:
BLINDLY following other countries' interpretations is bad.

So (A) is saying NOT-BLINDLY following other countries' interpretations is good.

(A) and (D) are very close, but (A) is softer and more nuanced.

(D) is saying that it's UNACCEPTABLE to rely on other countries' interpretations.

(A) is making it sound allowable, but with a qualifying warning.

(A) it's ACCEPTABLE to rely on other countries' interpretations as long as you're staying mindful of the unique circumstances that led to some of those interpretations.