What is the author's main point?
A right that cannot be afforded is a courtesy, not a right. When legal aid is cut so that tenants facing eviction or parents contesting custody must represent themselves, the court system continues to operate, but its procedures were built for people with training. Judges report that unrepresented litigants take longer to hear, so the saving to the legal aid budget is partly spent in extra courtroom time. This argument from cost is not the strongest; the strongest is simply that justice that depends on wealth is not justice. Still, it is worth making, because it speaks to those who would otherwise dismiss the principle as sentimental.
Answer and explanation
Correct answer: E. Cutting legal aid undermines the right to justice and may not even save money
- Step 1: The first sentence says an unaffordable right is a courtesy, and the passage supports the principle and a cost argument.
- Step 2: The only choice consistent with this is "Cutting legal aid undermines the right to justice and may not even save money".
Answer
Cutting legal aid undermines the right to justice and may not even save money.
Why not the others: The author never discusses judges' pay, the scope of aid, or redesign, and 'courtesy' is used as a criticism.
Practise more Legal aid.
Free questions with an explanation for every one, and full timed LNAT mock tests.