Dorking on Dworkin (PT 35 P4 Q22) Forum

[Kimikho]

I tried posting this to the Manhattan forum but it isn't letting me enter a subject in for some reason, so I can't post :/.

So on question 22--I went with B ("to evaluate the theory of legal positivism") because the second paragraph described legal positivism through Dworkin's eyes ("Dworkin's view is that legal positivists...."), and "evaluating," to me, seems to be being critical of something. I also saw how the paragraph identified the basic tenets of legal positivism (answer D), but felt that because the passage had an opinion in it, "evaluate" was a match.

Obviously there is only one answer. Could someone explain what is wrong with B?

[SilvermanBarPrep]

The answers are close for sure, and a very good method for determining the main purpose of any given paragraph is to read closely the first sentence of the paragraph, as usually one will set out one's purpose early on. The first sentence here defines legal positivism and then goes on to explain how Dworkin feels about it. But the author is not evaluating it; rather the author, in this paragraph, has defined it, and then stated how Dworkin feels about. If you look at the passage as a whole (which is often required even when the question points to an individual paragraph), the evaluation of legal positivism comes later (starting around line 45), but before that evaluation can be made the author first wants to set forth exactly what legal positivism is, and does so in this paragraph.

[10052014]

.

[Kimikho]

The answers are close for sure, and a very good method for determining the main purpose of any given paragraph is to read closely the first sentence of the paragraph, as usually one will set out one's purpose early on. The first sentence here defines legal positivism and then goes on to explain how Dworkin feels about it. But the author is not evaluating it; rather the author, in this paragraph, has defined it, and then stated how Dworkin feels about. If you look at the passage as a whole (which is often required even when the question points to an individual paragraph), the evaluation of legal positivism comes later (starting around line 45), but before that evaluation can be made the author first wants to set forth exactly what legal positivism is, and does so in this paragraph.

Thanks! That was very helpful .

I tried posting this to the Manhattan forum but it isn't letting me enter a subject in for some reason, so I can't post :/.

So on question 22--I went with B ("to evaluate the theory of legal positivism") because the second paragraph described legal positivism through Dworkin's eyes ("Dworkin's view is that legal positivists...."), and "evaluating," to me, seems to be being critical of something. I also saw how the paragraph identified the basic tenets of legal positivism (answer D), but felt that because the passage had an opinion in it, "evaluate" was a match.

Obviously there is only one answer. Could someone explain what is wrong with B?

did this section today as well. got -2

-1 from that stupid passage, although it was #26. That one was very confusing as well.

Yeah, I missed #26 too but that was explained on the Manhattan boards...still is a stupid passage though.