The following text is from a jurisprudence article.
Legal positivism maintains that law's validity depends on social facts rather than moral content. Laws are valid if enacted through recognized procedures, regardless of their justice. Natural law theorists counter that genuinely unjust statutes aren't truly laws at all—"lex injusta non est lex." This debate often clarifies when interlocutors distinguish descriptive claims about legal systems from normative questions about citizens' obligations.
Which choice best describes the function of the last sentence?
It provides examples of unjust laws from specific legal systems.
It suggests the debate involves conflation of different types of claims.
It argues definitively for the natural law position.
It introduces new terminology unrelated to the positions described.
Correct Answer: B
Choice B is the best answer. The last sentence suggests the debate clarifies when distinguishing descriptive claims from normative ones—implying the positions sometimes conflate these.
- Evidence: The sentence states: "This debate often clarifies when interlocutors distinguish descriptive claims about legal systems from normative questions about citizens' obligations."
- Reasoning: It suggests the value of the debate lies in clarifying the difference between "is" (descriptive) and "ought" (normative).
- Conclusion: The function is to suggest the debate involves/clarifies conflation.
💡 Strategy: Look for "distinguish descriptive... from normative."
Choice A is incorrect because specific examples aren't given. Choice C is incorrect because neither position is favored. Choice D is incorrect because the terminology relates to both positions.