The law should be applied strictly according to its written text.

Judges should consider the intent of the legislature when interpreting the law.

The law should be interpreted in light of its social and economic context.

The law should be applied flexibly to achieve a just outcome in each case.

Emphasis on precedent

Focus on the intent of the legislature

Consideration of social and economic factors

Flexibility in applying the law

To interpret the law strictly according to its text.

To consider the intent of the legislature when interpreting the law.

To apply the law flexibly to achieve a just outcome in each case.

To create new laws to address changing social conditions.

Certainty and predictability in the law

Flexibility in applying the law

Consideration of social and economic factors

Promotion of judicial activism

It can lead to unjust outcomes in individual cases.

It ignores the intent of the legislature.

It fails to consider social and economic factors.

All of the above

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

Lon L. Fuller

H.L.A. Hart

Ronald Dworkin

Law and morality are inseparable.

Law and morality are completely distinct.

Law should be based on moral principles.

Law should not be influenced by moral considerations.

Precedent is binding on lower courts.

Precedent is persuasive but not binding.

Precedent is irrelevant in legal decision-making.

Precedent is only considered in criminal cases.

It allows judges to interpret the law flexibly.

It encourages the legislature to enact new laws.

It relies on precedent to provide guidance.

It does not address this problem.

A judge must follow the plain meaning of a statute.

A judge may consider the intent of the legislature when interpreting a statute.

A judge may consider the social and economic consequences of a decision.

A judge may create a new law to address a novel situation.

It provides certainty and predictability in the law.

It allows judges to interpret the law flexibly.

It encourages the legislature to enact new laws.

It promotes judicial activism.

Natural law is the foundation of legal rules.

Natural law is irrelevant to legal decision-making.

Natural law can be used to interpret legal rules.

Natural law can be used to create new laws.

It can lead to unjust outcomes in individual cases.

It ignores the intent of the legislature.

It fails to consider social and economic factors.

All of the above

It allows judges to choose the rule that is most just in the particular case.

It requires judges to follow the rule that is most consistent with precedent.

It requires judges to follow the rule that is most in line with the intent of the legislature.

It requires judges to follow the rule that is most consistent with natural law.

Legal Formalism encourages judicial activism.

Legal Formalism discourages judicial activism.

Legal Formalism is neutral towards judicial activism.

Legal Formalism is incompatible with judicial activism.