The U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in Abramski v. United States is an example of purposive legal reasoning.

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

The question asks whether Abramski v. United States represents purposive legal reasoning. 
Option 1: True — If we evaluate this claim through a strict lens of purposive interpretation, we would say the Court looked at the purpose of the statute (to prevent straw purchases and ensure accountability for the true buyer) and made a decision aligned with that purpose. However, this option would assert that the ruling primarily rests on the underlying purposes of the statute. In Abramski, the Court did discuss policy goals and the intent of Congress, but the central reasoning was not framed as a broad purposive interpretation of the statute’s purpose; rather, the Court emphasized the statutory text, its structure, and how the words applied to the facts, focusing on the consequences of a literal interpretation versus the statutory scheme. This makes the claim more contested if we insist on “purposive” as the main method. 
Option 2: False — The statement is not accurately describing Abramski as a paradigmatic example of purposive reasoning because the decision leaned more heavily on analyzing the statutory text, including the definitions and structure of the gun-sale provisions, and how applying the statute to a straw purchaser aligns with the specific language Congress used. The Court’s approach prioritized how the statute reads and how it is implemented, rather than a broader, purpose-driven interpretation that seeks to discern Congress’s overarching aims beyond the text. Misconceptions to avoid here include thinking purposive reasoning means any reference to goals automatically qualifies the approach, or that all modern decisions are equally purposive; Abramski’s opinion is better characterized as textual-historical statutory construction with attention to the practical effects rather than a sweeping purposive method. 
Option 1 expanded: If one were to label it purposive, one would point to the discussion of legislative purpose and the policy objective of preventing illicit gun transfers, yet such an attribution would be incomplete because the decision is anchored in how the statute’s terms are applied to the facts, not a full-blown purposive interpretive doctrine. 
Option 2 expanded: Conversely, the false claim rests on the idea that purposive reasoning dominates the opinion; critics can argue that the opinion relies on the statutory language and its coherence with the statutory scheme, which is not inherently the same as applying purposive reasoning as a primary method. 
In summary, the more precise reading is that Abramski’s reasoning centers on textual and structural interpretation within statutory context, rather than being a clear-cut poster child for purposive legal reasoning, making the statement false under a stricter definitional standard.

BUSFIN 3500 AU2025 (2111) Midterm Exam- Requires Respondus LockDown Browser

The U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in Abramski v. United States is an example of purposive legal reasoning.

查看解析

登录即可查看完整答案

类似问题

The U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Abramski v. U.S. is an example of:

__________________ refers to the products, methods, inventions, and standards used for the purpose of producing information.

____________________ is data presented in a meaningful context.

_________________ framework—a model of the components of an information system: computer hardware, software, data, procedures, and people.

_______________________ is the ability to model the components of the system to connect the inputs and outputs among those components.

___________________ is the ability to make and manipulate models.

_____________ states that the value of a network is equal to the square of the number of users connected to it.

Critical data characteristics include _______, timely, relevant, just sufficient and worth its cost.

更多留学生实用工具

考试浏览器助手

风格化写作助手

论文查重助手

文献引用助手

课堂转译助手

课堂笔记助手

Quiz搜索助手

学校历年真题

智能刷题助手

智能匹配练习

希望你的学习变得更简单