Directions (Q. 1 – 6) : The questions in this section is based on the passage.
The questions are
to be answered on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. For some of the
questions, more than one of the choices conceivably answer the question. However, you are to
choose the best answer; that is, the response that most accurately and completely answers the
question. Although the legal systems of England and the United States are superficially similar,
they differ profoundly in their approaches to and uses of legal reasons: substantive reasons are
more common than formal reasons in the United States, whereas in England the reverse is true.
This distinction reflects a difference in the visions of law that prevails in the two countries. In
England, the law has traditionally been viewed as a system of rules; the United States favours
a vision of law as an outward expression of community’s sense of right and justice. Substantive
reasons, as applied to law, are based on moral, economic, political and other considerations.
These reasons are found both “in the law” and “outside the law” so to speak. Substantive
reasons inform the content of a large part of the law: constitutions, statutes, contracts, verdicts,
and the like. Consider, for example, a statute providing or purposes were explicitly written into
the statute was to ensure quiet and safety in the park. Now suppose that a veterans’ group
mounts a World War II jeep (in running order but without a battery) as a war memorial on a
concrete slab in the park, and charges are brought against its members. Most judges in the
United States would find the defendants not guilty because what they did had no adverse effect
on park’s quiet and safety. Formal reasons are different in that they frequently prevent
substantive reasons from coming into play, even when substantive reasons are explicitly
incorporated into the law at hand. For example, when a document fails to comply with
stipulated requirements, the court may render the document legally ineffective. A Will
requiring written witness may be declared null and void and, therefore, unenforceable for the
formal reason that the requirement was not observed. Once the legal rule – that a Will is invalid
for lack of proper witnessing – has been clearly established, and the legality of the rule is not
in question, application of that rule precludes from consideration substantive arguments in
favour of the Will’s validity or enforcement. Legal scholars in England and the United States
have long bemused themselves with extreme examples of formal and substantive reasoning.
On the one hand, formal reasoning in England has led to wooden interpretations of statutes and
an unwillingness to develop the common law through judicial activism. On the other hand,
freewheeling substantive reasoning in the United States has resulted in statutory interpretations
so liberal that the texts of some statutes have been ignored.
1. Which one of the following best describes the content of the passage as a whole?
(a) An analysis of similarities and differences between the legal systems of England and the
United States
(b) A re-evaluation of two legal systems with the use of examples
(c) A contrast between the types of reasons embodied in the United States and English legal
systems
(d) An explanation of how two distinct visions of the law shaped the development of legal
reasoning
2. It can be inferred from the passage that English judges would like to find the veterans’ group
discussed in the second paragraph guilty of violating the statute because
(a) not to do so would encourage others to act as the group did
(b) not to do so would be to violate the substantive reasons underlying the law
(c) the veterans failed to comply with the substantive purpose of the statute
(d) the veterans failed to comply with the stipulated requirements of the statute
From the discussion on Wills in the third paragraph it can be inferred that substantive
arguments as to the validity of a Will might be considered under which one of the following
circumstances?
(a) The legal rule that a Will be witnessed in writing does not stipulate the formal of the
(b) The legal rule requiring that a Will be witnessed stipulates that the Will must be witnessed
in writing by two people
(c) The legal rule requiring that a Will be witnessed in writing stipulates that the witnessing
must be done in the presence of a judge
(d) A judge rules that the law can be interpreted to allow for a verbal witness to a Will in a case
involving a medical emergency
Which one of the following best describes the function of the last paragraph of the passage?
(a) It presents the consequences of extreme interpretations of the two types of legal reasons
discussed by the author
(b) It shows how legal scholars can incorrectly use extreme examples to support their views
(c) It corrects inaccuracies in legal scholars’ view of the nature of two types of legal systems
(d) It suggests how characterisations of the two types of legal reasons can become convoluted
and inaccurate
The author of the passage suggests that in English law a substantive interpretation of a legal
rule might be warranted under which one of the following circumstances
(a) Social conditions have changed to the extent that to continue to enforce the rule would be
to decide contrary to present-day social norms
(b) The composition of the legislature has changed to the extent that to enforce the rule would
be contrary to the views of the majority in the present legislative assembly
(c) The legality of the rule is in question and its enforcement is open to judicial interpretation
(d) Individuals who have violated the legal rule argue that application of the rule would lead to
unfair judicial interpretations
6. The author of the passage makes use of all of the following in presenting the discussion of
the English and the United States legal systems except
(a) Comparison and contrast
(b) Generalisation
(c) Explication of terms
(d) A chronology of historical developments
