Text 1: Legal philosopher Dr. Emma Wong defends legal positivism. "Law is determined by social facts—enactment, precedent, convention—not moral evaluation," Wong argues. "What the law is differs from what it should be."
Text 2: Natural lawyer Dr. Robert Chen challenges the separation. "Unjust laws fail to be genuine law," Chen contends. "An ordinance enabling murder lacks legal authority regardless of proper enactment. Legality has inherent moral constraints."
What is the fundamental dispute between Wong and Chen about law's nature?
Whether courts exist in legal systems
Whether moral content is necessary for legal validity
Whether precedent plays any role in law
Whether social conventions exist
Correct Answer: B
Choice B is the correct answer. Wong says law is determined by social facts alone—morality irrelevant to validity. Chen says moral failure defeats validity. Whether morality is necessary condition for legality.
- Evidence: Wong: law is social facts; Chen: legality has "moral constraints."
- Reasoning: Positivism separates law and morality; natural law connects them.
- Conclusion: Moral necessity for validity is the fundamental dispute.
Choice A is incorrect because both accept legal institutions. Choice C is incorrect because precedent is one of Wong's sources. Choice D is incorrect because Wong relies on conventions.