Reading comp PrepTest 101 · Section 1 · Question 20

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

Which one of 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

Consult notes to review the role of each paragraph in the passage, and choose the answer choice that best reflects those roles.

Answer Anticipation

After reading each paragraph, we should take a few seconds to note or reflect on its role. Doing so will help us track the author's argument, find details for questions, and directly answer Argument Structure questions like this one.Looking at our notes on each paragraph, we can see that the first paragraph introduces the need for social science research methods to analyze legal outcomes of sex discrimination cases and criticizes the enthusiasm shown by some scholars for outcomes analysis. The second paragraph goes into detail about the problems with outcomes analysis, and the third paragraph describes two alternative methods, policy capturing and review of trial transcripts, which the author finds more effective for potential plaintiffs than outcomes analysis. So, basically, an old approach to analyzing case law in sex discrimination suits is introduced and criticized, and two new approaches are introduced and endorsed.Let’s look for this basic map in the answer choices.

Answer choices

  1. A
    A technique is introduced, Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A matches the stem

    (A) Does this answer choice match our organizational map of the passage?

    Yes. The technique that is introduced is outcomes analysis (P1, S5), its shortcomings are summarized in the second paragraph (P2, S1-4), and then two new alternative techniques are described in the third paragraph (P3, S1-5). This matches our anticipation exactly. We can be sure this is the right answer. We can select this and wrap up the passage.

  2. B
    A debate is introduced, Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) Does this answer choice match our organizational map of the passage?

    No. This makes the passage sound like a Resolving a Debate passage. The author doesn't exactly present the various social science methods as part of a debate. Even if we say they do, no compromise is reached between them. Outcomes analysis is criticized (P2 S1), and two alternative methods are endorsed (P3 S1). The author doesn’t say that outcomes analysis should be used at all.

    Because it does not match what happens in the passage, this is not the right answer.

  3. C
    A theory is presented, Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) Does this answer choice match our organizational map of the passage?

    No. This make the passage sound like it uses a Proposing a Hypthothesis Meta-Structure. That Meta-Structure isn't a great fit for the passage, though. This passage doesn’t discuss any theories; it presents methods of analysis. A theory aims to explain something observed, while a method consists of steps to accomplish a task — in this case, analyzing sex discrimination cases. Moreover, the author never suggests how any approach mentioned can be further evaluated.

    Because this answer choice inaccurately describes what occurs in the passage, we can strike it.

  4. D
    Standards are established, hypothetical Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) Does this answer choice match our organizational map of the passage?

    No. This makes it sound like we read a Generalization/Example passage. The passage doesn’t really establish any standards or generalizations. The author certainly criticizes some methods of analysis and endorses others (P2 S1, P2 S3, P3 S1), but they don’t say: “here is the standard any method must meet.” The discussion is much less clear-cut than that.

    Because it doesn’t match what happens in the passage, we can strike this choice.

  5. E
    A position is challenged, Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) Does this answer choice match our organizational map of the passage?

    No. This sounds like a Rebutting Critics passage. It could be said that the author challenges outcomes analysis because outcomes analysis is criticized in two ways (P2, S1, S3). It could be said that the shortcomings of outcomes analysis are described, if not “categorized.” But it cannot be said that the author’s challenge to outcomes analysis is “revised.” The challenge, as expressed in the second paragraph, stands unchanged throughout the passage while the author introduces two alternatives to outcomes analysis (P3, S1-5).

    Because it inaccurately characterizes what happens in the passage, this is not the right choice.

What this tests

Question analytics

Based on historical answer selection rates for this question.

Answer choice distribution

  1. A Credited 90%
  2. B 3%
  3. C 2%
  4. D 1%
  5. E 4%

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