What is the author's main purpose?
Judges are bound to follow earlier decisions, a principle known as precedent. Critics call it a dead hand: the law is held hostage by the reasoning of people long dead. Yet the alternative is worse. If every judge were free to decide each case afresh, two citizens in identical circumstances might receive opposite rulings depending on the judge they drew. Precedent is a promise that like cases will be treated alike. It is not a promise that the law will never change; higher courts can overrule old decisions, and they sometimes do. But they do so slowly and with reasons, which is precisely the pace at which stable rules should shift. A legal system that changed whenever a judge was persuaded would be admired for its flexibility and avoided for its unpredictability.
Answer and explanation
Correct answer: A. To defend following precedent as a source of consistency while allowing change
- Step 1: The passage rebuts the 'dead hand' charge by stressing equal treatment and gradual change.
- Step 2: That is a defence of precedent, which leaves room for overruling.
Answer
To defend following precedent as a source of consistency while allowing change.
Why not the others: The author accepts overruling, praises the slow pace, and does not compare systems.
Practise more Legal reasoning.
Free questions with an explanation for every one, and full timed LNAT mock tests.