LSAT (Law School Admission Test)Reading ComprehensionMedium
Passage: "The legal concept of 'stare decisis,' meaning 'to stand by things decided,' is a cornerstone of common law systems. It dictates that courts should generally adhere to precedents set by prior decisions in similar cases. This principle ensures predictability and stability in the law, allowing individuals and businesses to plan their actions with reasonable assurance of legal outcomes. However, stare decisis is not absolute; courts can, and sometimes do, overturn precedents, especially when a prior ruling is deemed unworkable, unjust, or based on outdated societal norms. Such departures are rare and require compelling justification, underscoring the weight given to established legal principles." Which of the following situations, if true, would most strongly challenge the author's assertion that stare decisis 'ensures predictability and stability in the law'?
- AA Supreme Court ruling from 1950 is upheld in a similar case in 2020.
- BA state legislature frequently passes new laws that alter existing legal frameworks.
- CLower courts in a particular jurisdiction consistently disagree on the interpretation of a key precedent.
- DA newly appointed judge issues a ruling that aligns with established legal principles.
Show answer & explanationAnswer & explanation
Correct answer: C. Lower courts in a particular jurisdiction consistently disagree on the interpretation of a key precedent.
If lower courts consistently disagree on interpreting a key precedent, it directly undermines the idea that stare decisis provides predictability and stability, as similar cases would yield different outcomes.
Why the other options are wrong
- A. This supports the idea of predictability and stability, as an old ruling is upheld.
- B. Legislative changes are distinct from judicial precedent and do not directly challenge the stability provided by stare decisis within the judiciary.
- D. A judge aligning with established principles reinforces predictability and stability, rather than challenging it.
Challenging an Assertion
To challenge an assertion is to find information that directly contradicts or undermines the truth or validity of a specific claim made in the passage.
- Requires identifying the specific claim.
- Looks for information that weakens or refutes the claim.
- Must directly relate to the assertion, not tangential issues.
Memory trick: To challenge a claim, find the 'Sword of Contradiction' that cuts its truth.