Reading comp PrepTest 132 · Section 3 · Question 26

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

Based on the passage, Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: C

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

Question Type

Legal

Strategy Overview

Review the information on case-based reasoning, then head to the answers to find one that matches with that information

Answer Anticipation

Case-based reasoning was the topic of Paragraph 3, so we should focus our pre-work there.So what did the Author say about them? First, what they are - they try to resolve cases automatically by looking at similar cases (Lines 41-45). Second, the problem with them - “similarity” is defined by the person who is programming the system (Lines 49-53), and to truly work, the system would need to work this out for itself (Lines 54-57).Let’s find an answer lining up with these details!

Answer choices

  1. A
    The major problem in Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    (A) (Lines 43-44; Lines 49-53) Paragraph 3 does say that these systems store “individual example cases” in their databases, but there’s no indication that there isn’t enough storage to store all relevant cases. In fact, the Author identifies another key problem - the systems can’t themselves recognize what similarities are relevant.

  2. B
    These systems are more Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) Both the rules-based systems and the case-based systems are noted by the Author as being non-functional - she doesn’t rank which one is more useful than the other. She also doesn’t compare them on which is more simple!

  3. C
    Adding specific criteria for Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C matches the stem

    (C) (Lines 49-57) The problem that the Author notes with case-based systems is that the criteria for determining relevant similarities must be programmed into the system by the developer - the systems can’t make that determination on their own. As such, programming in more criteria won’t fix the issue - it’ll just reinforce what’s wrong with them. The program might work better with more criteria, but that doesn’t mean that an important shortcoming would be overcome.

  4. D
    These systems can independently Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) (Lines 54-57) This answer doesn’t line up with the Author’s main point, so it’s suspicious out of the gate. The text backs that call up - it says that the programs can’t determine on their own (“independently”) what cases are relevantly similar.

  5. E
    These systems are being Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) (Lines 6-8) The only goal stated for these systems is stated in Paragraph 1, and there’s no indication that the goal changed in any way between the development of rules-based systems and case-based ones.

What this tests

Question analytics

Based on historical answer selection rates for this question.

Answer choice distribution

  1. A 6%
  2. B 5%
  3. C Credited 82%
  4. D 3%
  5. E 5%

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

View all discussions Start a discussion