Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumExclusion Questions (EXCEPT/LEAST/NOT)

Read the following passage regarding legal positivism.

The jurisprudential framework of legal positivism, most notably articulated by H.L.A. Hart, fundamentally separates the existence of law from its moral qualities. Positivists assert that the legal validity of a rule depends solely on its pedigree—specifically, whether it was recognized and enacted through established institutional procedures. Therefore, under strict positivist theory, a deeply unjust statute remains completely legally valid provided it was formally codified. However, legal positivism is frequently misunderstood as demanding absolute obedience to all laws. While positivists insist that moral considerations do NOT determine a statute's legal validity, they readily concede that moral principles often influence the historical development of legal systems. Furthermore, positivists acknowledge that individuals may face profound moral obligations to disobey egregiously unjust laws; they simply maintain that such disobedience, while perhaps morally justified, remains a violation of the law itself.

Evaluate the accuracy of the following statement based on the passage:

Legal positivists concede that individuals might have a moral obligation to disobey egregiously unjust laws and that moral principles can influence the historical development of legal systems, but they do NOT acknowledge that a formally codified statute remains legally valid if it is deeply unjust.

Answer: Answer

Answer

False
The correct answer is False because the statement inaccurately excludes a core tenet of legal positivism that the passage explicitly includes. The statement claims positivists do NOT acknowledge that deeply unjust codified statutes remain legally valid. However, the passage explicitly asserts that 'under strict positivist theory, a deeply unjust statute remains completely legally valid provided it was formally codified.'

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the first half of the statement regarding concessions made by legal positivists.
The statement claims positivists concede moral obligations to disobey unjust laws and that moral principles influence legal history.
To verify the accuracy of the inclusionary clauses before the 'NOT' exclusion.
2
Locate evidence in the passage for the first half of the statement.
The passage confirms these points: positivists 'readily concede that moral principles often influence the historical development of legal systems' and 'acknowledge that individuals may face profound moral obligations to disobey egregiously unjust laws.'
This establishes that the first half of the statement accurately reflects the passage.
3
Analyze the exclusionary clause in the second half of the statement following the word 'NOT'.
The statement claims positivists do NOT acknowledge that a formally codified statute remains legally valid if deeply unjust.
This is the critical exclusion being tested in the statement.
4
Compare the exclusionary clause against the passage's definition of legal positivism.
The passage states the exact opposite: 'under strict positivist theory, a deeply unjust statute remains completely legally valid provided it was formally codified.'
Because the passage explicitly asserts what the statement claims it excludes, the statement as a whole is false.

Key Concept

Identifying what a text explicitly includes versus what it excludes or denies.
Rate this question

Topics

Exclusion Questions (EXCEPT/LEAST/NOT)

More questions from this topic