Reading comp PrepTest 132 · Section 3 · Question 25

Passage

Questions 21-28  .        Computers have long been utilized in the sphere  . of law in the form of word Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage Summary

Topic: Legal Studies


Paragraph 1

  • Paragraph note
    • An exciting prediction that hasn’t come to pass, and why
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Prediction - Computer programs that can practice law
    • Programs have fallen short
    • Why - Difficulty in resolving problems of meaning/applicability

Paragraph 2

  • Paragraph note
    • One failed approach is discussed
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Approach - Model law as set of rules to be applied
    • Why it failed - Requires interpretations of (sometimes intentionally) undefined laws/terms (far beyond capabilities)
    • Examples

Paragraph 3

  • Paragraph note
    • Another failed approach is discussed
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Approach - Case-based reasoning (compare to precedent)
    • Why it failed - Criteria for similarity set by developer; to work those similarities have to be found by computer system (apparently intractable)

Main Point: Unsurprisingly, attempts to make computer programs that can practice law have failed because of rules that have multiple interpretations and the difficulties in identifying similar precedent.

Key Lines?

Lines 4-6 - An exciting prediction of a product

Lines 8-10 - The products have fallen short

Lines 13-16 - Key reasons they have unsurprisingly failed

Lines 18-23 - One approach to developing the product

Lines 23-25 - Why it failed

Lines 41-44 - Another approach to developing the product

Lines 54-57 - Why it failed

Meta-Structure?

Examples - Paragraph 2 goes into several examples to back up its general contention that these legal programs fail because of interpretation issues. It’s a small part of the passage meant to back up a contention that is only part of the main point, so these Examples don’t define the passage, but it’s likely we’ll get a question or two about them.

Last Thoughts?

A key element as we work through the questions is going to be figuring out which paragraph holds the information key to answering it. While Paragraphs 2 and 3 focus on different approaches to developing the lawyer-replacement programs, there are some similarities between them. They both deal with issues of interpretation - either key legal concepts/language, or cases with similar details. As such, we should really think about which of the two approaches a given question is likely to be asking about before we spend time looking back to the passage!

Question prompt

It can be most Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: D

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

Question Type

Legal

Strategy Overview

Review the Author’s requirements for legal reasoning systems, then find an answer reflecting those details

Answer Anticipation

This question’s key task is to find where the Author lays out requirements for an effective legal reasoning system, so we should start by thinking about where that’s likely to come up.Paragraph 1 does talk about why these systems have failed, but it does so abstractly - it says that there are “problems involving the meaning and applicability” of legal texts (Lines 14-16). That’s likely not specific enough to lead to an answer, so let’s move on.Paragraphs 2 and 3 each talk about individual approaches and why they failed, and they do go into more details on these failures. The Author must, then, believe that whatever they failed to do is a requirement for such a system working!Paragraph 2 says that, to work, systems “have to be equipped with a kind of comprehensive knowledge of the world” to allow them to interpret the ambiguities in the text of laws (Lines 34-36) - both in their meaning and applicability. So there’s one requirement!Paragraph 3 says that, to work, a system must “discover for itself the factors that make cases similar in relevant ways” (Lines 55-57) - another requirement.So we have two potential answers - let’s go find the one that shows up!

Answer choices

  1. A
    Focusing on the doctrinal Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    (A) (Lines 17-18; Lines 38-41) This answer addresses the first approach that developers tried - the rules-based systems. While that was problematic, they moved on to case-based systems, which were based on a different principle, and those also failed. So the focus on the doctrinal nature of law in developing a rules-based system wasn’t the “fundamental error” made by developers since they tried something else that also failed.

  2. B
    Contemporary computers do not Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) (Lines 34-37; Lines 55-57) The problem with the first approach? Computers don’t have a comprehensive knowledge of the world. The problem with the second approach? Computers can’t analyze cases to find elements that are relevantly similar. Both of those require more than more “memory capability to store enough data.” Both require the ability to analyze data, not just store it.

  3. C
    Questions of interpretation in Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) (Lines 34-37) This answer talks about the first approach. The Author says that this approach failed because computers didn’t have “comprehensive knowledge of the world,” not because they didn’t have enough rules programmed in.

  4. D
    Legal statutes and reasoning Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D matches the stem

    (D) (Lines 34-37; Lines 54-57) According to the Author, the rules-based approach failed because computers lack knowledge that “is far beyond their capabilities at present or in the foreseeable future.” The case-based approach failed because computers face an “apparently intractable problem” in that they can’t discover for themselves what similarities are irrelevant. In both cases, the Author expresses some attitude that these problems can’t be resolved, which would mean that they involve innovative applications that computers might not be able to model.

  5. E
    As professionals continue to Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) (Lines 34-37; Lines 54-57) As we just noted, the Author doesn’t necessarily believe the problems that are preventing legal reasoning systems from working are solvable, so there’s no guarantee that these programs will work, let alone that legal professionals will be able to use them.

What this tests

Question analytics

Based on historical answer selection rates for this question.

Answer choice distribution

  1. A 8%
  2. B 3%
  3. C 4%
  4. D Credited 83%
  5. E 1%

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

  • Please explain 1 reply

    Started by cici92

  • Why E:( 1 reply

    Started by husky07

View all discussions Start a discussion