Read the following passage about early twentieth-century legal philosophy. Then, determine if the statement provided at the end is true or false based on the text.
In the early twentieth century, American jurisprudence was dominated by legal formalism, a deeply entrenched philosophy asserting that the law consists of a comprehensive, self-contained system of logically consistent rules. Formalists argued that judges merely discover and apply these pre-existing doctrinal rules to the specific facts of a case, thereby rendering judicial decision-making a purely mechanical and objective exercise entirely devoid of personal discretion, ideological preference, or broader policy considerations. By the 1920s, however, a dynamic intellectual movement known as legal realism emerged in American law schools to challenge this orthodox view. Legal realists forcefully contended that the law is fundamentally indeterminate and that strict logical deduction from abstract principles alone can rarely resolve complex legal disputes in a rapidly changing society.
A central figure in this realist movement, legal scholar Karl Llewellyn, drew a sharp and influential distinction between what he termed 'paper rules'—the formal text of legislative statutes and established judicial precedents—and 'real rules,' which he defined strictly as the observable, empirical patterns of actual judicial behavior. Llewellyn forcefully argued that paper rules are notoriously unreliable predictors of ultimate judicial outcomes. Instead, he posited that judges typically arrive at their case decisions based on a variety of unstated, extra-legal factors, such as their individual socio-economic backgrounds, embedded political biases, or an intuitive sense of situational fairness. Once a conclusion is reached intuitively, Llewellyn maintained, the judge then selectively marshals the available paper rules to construct a post-hoc rationalization that provides the public appearance of logical inevitability. Consequently, Llewellyn advocated that legal scholarship must shift its focus away from the abstract doctrinal analysis of appellate court opinions and toward the rigorous empirical study of what courts actually do in practice.
Statement to evaluate: It can be inferred from the passage that Karl Llewellyn believed examining the socio-economic backgrounds of judges provides a more accurate predictor of their rulings than analyzing the logical consistency of existing legislative statutes.
Answer: Answer