Read the following passage, then answer the question that follows.
In analyzing the shift from formalist jurisprudence to legal realism in the early twentieth century, historians often overstate the abruptness of the theoretical transition. Formalists supposedly viewed the law as a closed system of deductively applied principles, whereas realists evaluated laws based on empirical social consequences. To illustrate the alleged myopia of their predecessors, realist scholars frequently cited the 1905 decision in *Lochner v. New York*, where the court struck down a labor regulation by appealing to an abstract "freedom of contract." By characterizing *Lochner* as a mechanical deduction divorced from material reality, realists sought to thoroughly discredit formalism. However, this retrospective framing obscures the fact that the *Lochner* court itself engaged in significant sociological analysis, albeit grounded in different economic premises. Thus, the realists' deployment of *Lochner* served less as an objective historical description than as a rhetorical strategy designed to artificially sharpen the contrast between the old regime and their own proposed methodology.
The author of the passage refers to the "1905 decision in *Lochner v. New York*" primarily in order to...
- Ademonstrate how a landmark ruling accurately exemplified the mechanical deduction characteristic of formalist jurisprudence
- Bprovide a concrete example of a labor regulation that was struck down due to an abstract appeal to freedom of contract
- identify a specific case that a group of scholars deployed as a rhetorical tool to artificially distance their own methodology from that of their predecessorsAnswer
- Dconcede that despite the exaggerations of historians, formalist jurisprudence occasionally produced rulings divorced from material reality
- Eoutline the chronological sequence of judicial events that led to the abrupt transition from formalist logic to legal realism