Reading comp PrepTest 132 · Section 3 · Question 27

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

Which one of the 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

Find a discuss of characteristics of statutes that frustrate legal reasoning systems, then find an answer stating it

Answer Anticipation

Questions that ask for something explicitly mentioned in the passage come in two forms. The first will give you no guidance as to the topic, and the difficulty there is identifying which answer is correct when the answers tend to refer to concepts that could show up anywhere. The second will give you a specific topic and see if you can reason your way to finding it in the passage quickly. In pointing you to a specific topic, this question falls in the latter camp.So where would the passage talk about characteristics of statutes that would frustrate a computerized legal reasoning system? Paragraph 1 spoke only in generalities, and Paragraph 3 spoke about case-based systems, which would talk about cases and not statutes. That leaves Paragraph 2, which makes sense since that’s a rules-based system that would need to deal with statutes.So why did the rules-based systems fail? The Author says that they “underestimated the problems of interpretation that can arise at every stage of a legal argument” (Lines 23-25). It gives several examples about situations where definitions are unclear (Lines 25-29), and another where a law was deliberately left vague so it would be adaptable (Lines 30-33). So let’s find an answer that reflects this reasoning.

Answer choices

  1. A
    complexity of syntax
    Why choice A is not credited

    (A) (Line 26; Lines 30-31) Situations “open to differing interpretations” or “deliberately left undefined” don’t necessarily have complex syntax - you could have a rule with simple sentences that still feature ambiguity.

  2. B
    unavailability of relevant precedents
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) (Lines 54-57) This answer addresses the case-based systems, which dealt with cases rather than statutes. And, in any case, a lack of precedent wasn’t the problem with those - it was developing a system that could determine what was relevant precedent independently.

  3. C
    intentional vagueness and adaptability
    Why choice C matches the stem

    (C) (Lines 30-33) One of the examples given of a situation where interpretation of statutes could be problematic is a law “deliberately left undefined so as to [be] adapted to unforeseen circumstances.” This answer restates that, making it the correct answer.

  4. D
    overly narrow intent
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) (Lines 30-33) The passage cites problematic laws as being vague and adaptable, which would mean that they’re broad rather than narrow.

  5. E
    incompatibility with previous statutes
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) The passage never mentions statutes that contradict other statutes as being a problem for these systems.

What this tests

Question analytics

Based on historical answer selection rates for this question.

Answer choice distribution

  1. A 6%
  2. B 8%
  3. C Credited 78%
  4. D 5%
  5. E 3%

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

  • Why not A? 1 reply

    Started by Shula

  • Help on Question 2 replies

    Started by Paloma-Vollhardt

View all discussions Start a discussion