The following text discusses legal theory.
Critical legal studies (CLS), emerging in the 1970s, argued that law is fundamentally indeterminate—legal materials can support multiple, contradictory outcomes. Judges deciding cases exercise discretion shaped by ideology and social position, not mechanical application of neutral rules. CLS scholars "trashed" doctrines by showing how legitimate legal reasoning could reach opposite conclusions from the same precedents. Critics objected that CLS exaggerated indeterminacy and offered no alternative vision. Yet CLS permanently influenced legal education by encouraging skepticism toward claims that law mechanically yields correct answers.
What was CLS's central claim about legal decision-making?
Law mechanically yields objectively correct answers
Legal materials are indeterminate, with judicial ideology and discretion filling gaps
All judges reach identical conclusions from the same precedents
Legal education should avoid any skepticism
Correct Answer: B
Choice B is the correct answer. CLS argued "law is fundamentally indeterminate" and "judges...exercise discretion shaped by ideology and social position."
- Evidence: Indeterminacy of materials; discretion shaped by ideology.
- Reasoning: Neutral application is impossible; values fill gaps.
- Conclusion: Indeterminacy plus ideological discretion is the core claim.
Choice A is incorrect because CLS challenged this view. Choice C is incorrect because "contradictory outcomes" are possible. Choice D is incorrect because CLS encouraged skepticism.