Reading comp PrepTest 101 · Section 1 · Question 18

Passage

Questions 14-20  .        In recent years, scholars have begun to use social  . science tools to analyze court opinions. Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage Summary

Topic: Legal


Paragraph 1

  • Paragraph note
    • Author's view on using social science techniques to analyze court cases (example in sex-discrimination cases, but the potential of its "outcomes analysis" is exaggerated)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Views of scholars who have recently used social science techniques to analyze court opinions:
      • Traditional legal research doesn't help real people with legal problems (second sentence)
    • Example of a study using social science techniques:
      • Zirkel and Schoenfeld have used social science tools to analyze case law surrounding discrimination against women employees in higher ed (third sentence)
    • Author's view on Zirkel and Schoenfeld's studies:
      • Their studies show that social science tools can help scholars, lawyers, and prospective plaintiffs (fourth sentence)
      • Their endorsement of "outcomes analysis" is mistaken (last sentence)
    • Author's attitude: "justifiably criticized" (second sentence); "may not be representative" (second sentence); "arcane matters" (second sentence); "studies have demonstrated" (fourth sentence); "may be used" (fourth sentence); "seems misguided" (last sentence)

Paragraph 2

  • Paragraph note
    • Author's criticism of outcomes analysis (ignores differences between cases, so it's not useful to plaintiffs)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • List of problems with outcomes analysis, according to the author:
      • Problem 1: It's not useful to simply count the number of successful and unsuccessful plaintiffs because prospective plaintiffs will believe they are right and will prevail anyway (first through second sentences)
      • Problem 2: The details of cases are very different from each other (
      • Certain factors can make it much more likely the plaintiff will win in academic sex discrimination cases (fourth sentence)
    • Examples of differences between cases, according to the author:
      • The quality of evidence and attitude of the judge (third sentence)
    • Examples of meaningful differences between cases that make it much more likely the plaintiff will win in academic sex discrimination cases, according to the author:
      • Serious procedural violations and written admissions of discriminatory practices (fourth sentence)
    • Author's attitude: "fundamental concern" (first sentence); "assumption" (first sentence) "odds are clearly against" (second sentence); "not swayed" (second sentence); "lawsuits are so different" (third sentence); "is of marginal assistance" (third sentence); "ignores the fact" (fourth sentence)

Paragraph 3

  • Paragraph note
    • Author on advantages two new approaches ("policy capturing" and analyzing trial transcripts over a specific period)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Author's list of two new, more advantageous approaches to sex-discrimination cases:
      • Approach 1: "Policy capturing," in which variables in each opinion are identified and analyzed using multivariate analysis to determine whether variables predict the outcome of the lawsuit (second sentence)
      • Approach 2: Analyzing trial transcripts of a particular kind of case during a specified period (fourth sentence)
    • Examples of variables in "policy capturing," according to the author:
      • The frequency of employer evaluations of the plaintiff's performance, training of evaluators, and kind of evaluation (second sentence)
    • Examples of variables in the second approach, according to the author:
      • Nature of conduct, consequences for employers, nature of the remedy, factors that contributed to verdict, kind of evidence necessary for the plaintiff to win (fourth sentence)
    • Author's views on the advantages of the two approaches:
      • Policy capturing identifies factors that contribute to plaintiff's success or failure and attempts to explain why a suit came out the way it did (third sentence)
      • The second approach's timescale limited, but is helpful (last sentence)
    • Author's attitude: "more useful applications" (first sentence); "advantage of policy-capturing research" (third sentence); "attempts to explain the reason" (third sentence); "identifies factors that contribute" (third sentence); "identify variables" (fourth sentence); "assist potential plaintiffs" (fifth sentence)

Main Point: The utility of outcomes analysis for plaintiffs in sex discrimination cases has been exaggerated, while policy capturing and review of trial transcripts are two more promising ways of deploying social science techniques to assist such plaintiffs.

Key Lines?

Paragraph 1, Sentence 1 (P1, S1) - Statement of topic

P1, S5 - Old approach: outcomes analysis

P2, S1 - First problem with outcomes analysis

P2, S3 - Second problem with outcomes analysis

P3, S2 - New approach1: policy capturing

P3, S4 - New approach 2: trial transcript analysis

Meta-Structure?

Old Approach/New Approach: This passage uses an Old Approach/New Approach Meta-Structure.* The author describes Zirkel and Schoenfeld's enthusiasm for outcomes analysis in the effort to analyze higher education sex discrimination cases, but the author says their enthusiasm for this approach is misplaced. The author then describes two "new" approaches to predicting sex discrimination cases with social science methods, "policy capturing" and review of trial transcripts. The author argues that approaches are more helpful than the "old" approach.

When a passage utilizes an Old Approach/New Approach Meta-Structure, the main point is generally the author’s opinion on the new approach. The author didn't summarize their opinion on the new approaches for us, so we summarized the author’s opinions ourselves: "The utility of outcomes analysis for plaintiffs in sex discrimination cases has been exaggerated, while policy capturing and review of trial transcripts are two more promising ways of deploying social science techniques to assist such plaintiffs."

*OK, OK. It seems like all the approaches described in this passage are relatively new. Still, this passage fits the basic model of Old Approach (that the author doesn't like)/New Approach (that the author prefers). But, as is often the case with passages that use a Critical Meta-Structure, other Meta-Structures in this family could describe this passage. We could certainly call this passage a Correcting the Record passage. You could even stretch a bit and call this a Problem/Solution passage (problem: predicting outcomes in sex-discrimination cases; solutions: the three approaches described).

Last Thoughts?

This is a passage that has a largely legal topic but that brings in elements of social science. The author has a clear viewpoint and lays out their reasons for it while criticizing one method of legal analysis and endorsing two others. It is a somewhat dry passage, but the author's intention is clear, and the passage's organization plays directly to that intention.

Question prompt

The information in the Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: A

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Question Type

Legal

Strategy Overview

Review the relevant part of the passage and notes, if necessary, to anticipate key features of plaintiffs who pursue sex discrimination cases despite the statistics produced by outcomes analysis.

Answer Anticipation

These Application/Analogous Situation questions closely resemble Parallel Reasoning questions in Logical Reasoning. We want to find the answer choice structurally similar to the element we're asked to analogize. The correct answer won't have the same subject matter as the passage; instead, it will feature similar characteristics or themes as the element from the passage. Therefore, we should start by reviewing the key features of the element we're asked to parallel.This question asks about plaintiffs who pursue sex discrimination cases despite the statistics provided by outcomes analysis. This sounds like criticism of outcomes analysis, so our note for the second paragraph points us there. That paragraph states that plaintiffs who decide to bring cases even though the odds are against them do so because they believe they are in the right and they will win (P2, S2). So, we are looking for an answer choice in which someone believes they are right and will win or succeed in a situation despite clear statistical evidence suggesting they will lose or fail. This anticipation may sound rather broad, but we want our anticipation to be very general for these questions. This will help us assess the elements or themes of the answer choices independent of their subject matter.

Answer choices

  1. A
    athletes who continue to Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A matches the stem

    (A) Does this answer choice describe a situation in which someone persists in a cause or endeavor despite clear statistical evidence that suggests they will lose or not be successful?

    Yes. This answer choice shows someone who persists with techniques that have been statistically shown to be ineffective in doing what the person wants them to do. The athlete, in this case, is likened to the plaintiff who brings a sex discrimination case despite clear statistical evidence from outcomes analysis that shows they are very unlikely to be successful. Because of this similarity, this is the right answer. We'd be justified in selecting it and moving on to the next question.

  2. B
    lawyers who handle lawsuits Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) Does this answer choice describe a situation in which someone persists in a cause or endeavor despite clear statistical evidence that suggests they will lose or not be successful?

    No. This answer choice shows someone who undertakes a large number of endeavors in the hope that few will be successful. That is not the same thing as a plaintiff who undertakes a single case because they believe they are in the right and will win because of that rightness (P2, S2). The lawyer's motive in the answer choice differs from the motive of the plaintiff in the passage, and the number of endeavors undertaken is different between the lawyer and the plaintiff, as well.

    Because this analogy is dissimilar to the plaintiff in the passage, we can eliminate this answer choice.

  3. C
    candidates for public office Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) Does this answer choice describe a situation in which someone persists in a cause or endeavor despite clear statistical evidence that suggests they will lose or not be successful?

    No. The plaintiff in the passage believes they will win because their cause is just (P2, S2), while the political candidate doesn’t necessarily believe they will win, even if they do believe their cause is just. The fact that the motive and the outcome are linked in the case of the plaintiff and are divorced in the case of the political candidate makes this answer choice dissimilar enough to the passage that we can eliminate it. Moreover, this answer choice doesn't say that evidence suggests these candidates will lose. Therefore, nothing in this answer choice is analogous to "clear statistical evidence that suggests they will lose or not be successful."

  4. D
    supporters of a cause Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) Does this answer choice describe a situation in which someone persists in a cause or endeavor despite clear statistical evidence that suggests they will lose or not be successful?

    No. Nothing in this answer choice is analogous to "clear statistical evidence that suggests they will lose or not be successful." Indeed, the plaintiff in the passage ignores the very unfavorable odds against them because they believe in the rightness of their cause (P2, S2). We don't have any evidence that suggest these supporters' cause is a losing one. Therefore, we can eliminate this answer choice.

  5. E
    purchasers of a charity's Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) Does this answer choice describe a situation in which someone persists in a cause or endeavor despite clear statistical evidence that suggests they will lose or not be successful?

    No. The ticket purchasers in the answer choice consider their purchase a practical loss and are sure they won’t win, so they are purchasing the ticket just to support the charity, while the plaintiff in the passage is persisting with the case because they believe they are right and will win (P2, S2). The ticket purchasers and the plaintiff have totally different convictions about the outcome of their endeavor, and this dissimilarity enables us to strike this answer choice.

What this tests

Question analytics

Based on historical answer selection rates for this question.

Answer choice distribution

  1. A Credited 66%
  2. B 9%
  3. C 8%
  4. D 10%
  5. E 7%

Deeper help

Ask follow-ups on any step

Optional AI tutor mode will let you interrogate assumptions, compare answers, and drill weak patterns without leaving the page.

Human-written explanations stay primary; AI is an add-on when you want it.

Discussion

No threads yet—be the first to ask a question or share an approach.

View all discussions Start a discussion