Reading comp PrepTest 116 · Section 4 · Question 4

Topic: Legal Studies

Paragraph 1

• Paragraph note
  • Some legal scholars' answer: Provide best defense to accused, even if believe guilty
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Question posed: "Is it necessary for defense lawyers to believe that the clients they defend are innocent of the charges against them?" (lines 1-3)
  • The framing of the first view coming from "some legal scholars" will likely be contrasted by an alternative view (the author's, possibly)

Paragraph 2

• Paragraph note
  • Author's answer: If certain def. is guilty, argue for leniency rather than make false claims
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • "Shift" language: "But" (line 20)
  • List, item 1: Obligation to defendant (lines 21-22)
  • List, item 2: Obligation to court and society (lines 22-23)
  • Author's attitude: "lawyers … should not, as officers of the court, present to the court assertions they know to be false" (lines 23-25)
  • Author's attitude: "lawyers who are convinced that their clients are guilty should not undertake to demonstrate their innocence" (lines 26-28)

Paragraph 3

• Paragraph note
  • Author's conclusion: Lawyers advocate defendant's rights based on facts of case
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Author's attitude: "ultimately benefits" (line 43), "can only truly be provided" (line 44)
  • Expanding initial answer to broader point about selecting cases and rights depending on facts of case

Main Point: While defense lawyers have a duty to their clients, their duty to the court and society requires them to modify their advocacy based on the facts of a case.

Lines 1-3: Question posed

Lines 3-7: Some legal scholars' answer

Lines 20-23: Author's support (duty to court/society)

Lines 26-28: Author's answer

Lines 46-51: Author's conclusion that defense attorneys should decide whether and how to advocate for defendants' rights based on facts of case

Question/Answer: This passage utilizes the Question/Answer Meta-Structure. Most of these passages follow a predictable formula. A question is posed early on, and the rest of the passage attempts to answer that question. In that case, the main point of the passage is simply the answer to the question with which the author agrees. (For the odd passage in which the author doesn't express approval over any answer, the main point is simply a summary of the various answers).

In this particular passage, the question is, "Is it necessary for defense lawyers to believe that the clients they defend are innocent of the charges against them?" We first hear from legal scholars who answer that question with an unequivocal, "No." But then the author provides a more nuanced answer in the second paragraph. The author postulates that defense lawyers have duties to the court and society, in addition to their clients. From this, the author concludes that defense lawyers who are certain their clients are guilty shouldn't attempt to prove their clients' innocence. Instead, they should present any mitigating evidence to justify more lenient sentencing.

So, that answer is the main point, right? Well, not quite. This passage takes a unique turn in the final paragraph. There, the author expands the initial inquiry and draws a more general conclusion. In the third paragraph — still using that duty to the court and society as premise (lines 42-45) — the author concludes that defense lawyers might not need to take every case offered. Perhaps a defense lawyers don't need to represent people they know are guilty. Finally, the author prescribes that lawyers' advocacy for defendants depends "on facts of the case." (lines 46-51). So the main point is that defense lawyers' duty to the courts and society requires these lawyers to consider the facts of the case before determining how (and whether) they should advocate for their defendants.

The last paragraph takes a surprising turn, given the structure of this passage, so we expect several questions relating to the author's conclusion there. Further, the lawyer's duty "to the court, and by extension, to society" comes up several times and is a key piece of evidence in both the author's paragraph two answer and the author's paragraph three conclusion, so we expect a question or two about that as well.

(Also, perhaps it bears mentioning that this author's view is not the mainstream view in U.S. jurisprudence, and this article may very well be taken from another country. We only mention this because you're probably going to learn something different from this if you go to law school in the U.S.)