The passage suggests that defenders of precedent would most likely say that distinguishing a precedent is

Courts in many countries follow a doctrine of precedent: when a similar case has been decided by a higher court, a lower court should reach the same result. Defenders of the doctrine argue that it makes the law predictable, because people can know in advance how courts are likely to rule, and that it treats like cases alike, which is a basic demand of fairness. Critics reply that strict adherence to precedent can preserve decisions that have become unjust or out of date. Most legal systems therefore allow a court to distinguish a precedent, that is, to hold that the facts of the present case differ in an important way from those of the earlier one. This practice is not a loophole, its defenders say, but part of what the doctrine requires: like cases are to be treated alike only if they really are alike. The difficulty is that judges may disagree about which differences matter, so that even a system that honors precedent leaves room for judgment.

Answer and explanation

Correct answer: A. consistent with the doctrine, which treats only like cases alike

  1. Step 1: The passage says it is part of what the doctrine requires. Step 2. Defenders see it as consistent. Answer: consistent with the doctrine. Why not the others: defenders reject these views.

Practise more Science, Law, Literature and Economics Passages.

Free questions with an explanation for every one, and full timed LSAT (Law School Admission Test) mock tests.

All Science, Law, Literature and Economics Passages questionsTake a mock test

More Science, Law, Literature and Economics Passages questions