Reading comp PrepTest 139 · Section 2 · Question 22

Passage

Questions 21-27  .        In October 1999, the Law Reform Commission  . of Western Australia (LRCWA) issued its report,  . Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage Summary

Topic: Legal


Paragraph 1

  • Paragraph note
    • A proposed change in LRCWA report (introducing contingency fees in Western Australia)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Definition of "contingency fee": Lawyer gets paid only if they're successful in the case (third sentence)
    • Author's view:
      • The Law Reform Commission of Western Australia (LRCWA) report recommends several recommendations to introduce contingency fees (second sentence)
    • Comparison, according to the author:
      • Lawyers take on more risk under a contingency-fee arrangement , so the fees are higher than normal (last sentence)
    • Author's attitude: "several important recommendations" (second sentence); "generally exceed" (last sentence)

Paragraph 2

  • Paragraph note
    • Details of contingency fee proposal ("uplift" fee intention; requirements: (1) last resort and (2) client can't pay the normal fee)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Definition of "uplift" contingency fee: Lawyers' normal fee plus a percentage of fee as bonus if win (first sentence)
    • The intention of "uplift" fee:
      • Prevent lawyers from getting too much and clients too little (second sentence)
    • List of two requirements of an "uplift" fee, according to LRCWA:
      • The fee must be a last resort after they've tried to arrange a normal fee (last sentence)
      • Lawyers must be satisfied that the clients can't afford the normal fee if they don't win (last sentence)

Paragraph 3

  • Paragraph note
    • Author's opinion on how requirements affect lawyers (forces lawyers into a burdensome investigation into factors that may change)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Author's view:
      • It's unfortunate that the LRCWA's recommendation would require lawyers to look at more than just law (client finances; cost of litigation), which is an onerous (burdensome) investigation into factors that may change as the litigation goes on (first and last sentences)
    • Example of factors that change as the lawsuit goes on, according to the author:
      • Strategies adopted by the opposing side (last sentence)
    • Author's attitude: "Unfortunately" (first sentence); "forced to investigate" (first sentence); "onerous for a number of reasons, not least of which ... change as the case unfolds" (last sentence)

Paragraph 4

  • Paragraph note
    • Author's opinion on how requirements affect clients (unfair since only the least well-off can use it when reasons for it apply to everyone)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Author's view:
      • The LRCWA's requirements are unfair because they limit the freedom of contract to clients who don't "qualify" (middle- and even some upper-income people) when the reasons for entering the arrangement apply to everyone (first through third sentences)
    • List of reasons for entering a contingency fee relationship:
      • Finance litigation costs (fourth sentence)
      • Shift risk to lawyers (fifth sentence)
      • Align the lawyer's and client's interests, increasing lawyers' diligence and commitment (last sentence)
    • Author's attitude: "burdensome" (first sentence); "unfair" (first sentence); "unjustly limit freedom of contract" (second sentence); "make certain types of litigation inaccessible" (second sentence); "More importantly" (third sentence), "primary reasons ... hold for all clients" (third sentence); "reasonable to assume" (last sentence); "increase lawyers' diligence and commitment" (last sentence)

Main Point: The proposed change to allow contingency-fee arrangements in Western Australia would be burdensome for lawyers and unfair to clients. 

Meta-Structure?

Criticizing a Viewpoint: This passage best fits the Criticizing a Viewpoint Meta-Structure.* In such a passage, the author describes a view held by another person or group and then criticizes their view. Importantly, the author’s argument should focus primarily on why the view is wrong, unjustified, or misguided. (If the author offers an alternative, then the passage may be better described as an Old Approach/New Approach passage. If the author focuses on a misconception or oversight, the passage may be better described as a Correcting the Record passage.)

In this case, the author spends almost the entire passage arguing why LRCWA's recommendation to adopt an "uplift" contingency-fee arrangement in Western Australia is bad. (The author may tacitly acknowledge that the recommendations might have some benefit — clients who couldn't otherwise afford a lawyer would be able to. But other than that, the recommendations are all bad for the author.) The author uses the third paragraph to explain why these arrangements would be too burdensome for lawyers and the fourth paragraph to show how the arrangements would be unfair to clients.

When a passage utilizes a Criticizing a Viewpoint passage, the main point is generally the author’s central criticism. We summarized the author's two primary criticism in our anticipated main point.

*As with most passages that use a Critical Meta-Structure, we could use another Meta-Structure from that family to describe this passage — particularly Correcting the Record. We could also call this as a Problem/Solution passage, as long as we note that the author is very sour on the proposed solution.

List: This passage presents several lists. The first is in the second paragraph, where a list of requirements that must be met before a contingency-fee arrangement is allowed is presented (P2, S3). The second is in the fourth paragraph, where a list of reasons that all clients would enter into such an arrangement is presented (P4, S3-S6). These are limited and exist as support for the author's overall argument, so they're likely to be asked about in a question or two while not necessarily being reflected in the correct answers to big-picture questions.

Last Thoughts?

This passage includes quite a bit of information about what a contingency-fee arrangement is, with not only a general description but a discussion of the specific type discussed here. You may have your own idea of what a contingency-fee arrangement is, creating an expectation that might not match what's defined here. It's important to be very clear on what the specific type of contingency-fee arrangement in the passage — the "uplift" fee arrangement — is. That's defined in the second paragraph. When a lawyer wins, they get their normal fee plus an "agreed-upon additional percentage of that fee." So it's not a percentage of the settlement or verdict, but rather a percentage of their normal fee that they receive as a "bonus" for winning. We can almost guarantee that there will be a question testing your ability to distinguish what is defined here from what most people believe a normal contingency-fee arrangement with a lawyer is.

Question prompt

The passage states which 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

Remind ourselves of the main point of the passage, then head to the answers, focusing on those that line up with the main point and then using our notes/the passage to find the correct answer

Answer Anticipation

This question stem provides no indication as to the topic of the correct answer or where it’ll show up in the passage. As such, we’ll need to rely on our big-picture understanding of the passage to answer this question. We should start by reminding ourselves of the main point (either by reviewing what we said after reading the passage or by rereading our answer to the main point question). From there, we can head to the answer choices. If something in an answer choice doesn't seem familiar and isn’t reflected in our notes on each paragraph, we shouldn’t check the passage to see if it was mentioned. Instead, we’ll table it and move on to the next answer choice. If something seems inconsistent with the main point, we can eliminate it. If something seems familiar, consistent with the main point, or reflected in our notes, we’ll use our notes/highlights/underlines to find the part of the passage that proves the answer choice must be true. If we can find that confirmation, we’ll select that answer choice and move on.

Answer choices

  1. A
    Contingency-fee agreements serve the Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A matches the stem

    (A) Is this consistent with the main point or reflected in our notes?

    Yes! Our note for the second paragraph mentions "'uplift' fee intention," which suggests that the second paragraph may support this answer. However, this paragraph may describe the intention of an "uplift" fee in particular — and not contingency fees more generally. Additionally, this answer choice describes a benefit to the client, and our note for the fourth paragraph tells the author used that paragraph to list reasons a client would enter into a contingency fee arrangement. We could review either paragraph to check whether (A) is supported, but it may be wiser to start with the fourth.

    If we checked the fourth paragraph, we'd see that it says contingency-fee arrangements shift the risk of "not recovering" the losses of a legal action from the client to the lawyer (P4, S5). Losing money on the case is definitely a "risk of pursuing a legal action," so this is the correct answer. We can justifiably select this and move on.

    (Not that if we checked the second paragraph, we wouldn't fit explicit support for this answer choice.)

  2. B
    Contingency-fee agreements of the Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) Is this consistent with the main point or reflected in our notes?

    No. Neither our main point nor our notes discuss what fees lawyers "deserve." The main point says that LRCWA's recommendations are too burdensome for lawyers, but that doesn't mean the author thinks lawyers deserve the fees they'd receive. After all, the author may think that lawyers' regular fees are higher than they deserve. For this reason, we can eliminate — or at least table — (B) without checking the passage.

    Besides, we wouldn't find support for (B) if we re-read the entire passage.

    There's no discussion of what lawyers deserve to be paid, just a discussion of their normal fees.

  3. C
    At least some of Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) Is this consistent with the main point or reflected in our notes?

    Nope. Neither our main point nor our notes bring up how likely it is that the LRCWA's recommendations are implemented. For this reason, we can eliminate — or at least table — (C) without checking the passage.

    Besides, we wouldn't find support for (C) if we re-read the entire passage. The author never weighs in on the likelihood of these proposals being adopted.

  4. D
    Allowing contingency-fee agreements of Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) Is this consistent with the main point or reflected in our notes?

    Negative. Neither our main point nor our notes explicitly mention whether lawyers' diligence or commitment is affected by contingency-fee agreements. Moreover, this answer says that a contingency-fee agreement wouldn't benefit a client this way, and our note for the fourth paragraph suggests that the author does believe that some contingency-fee relationships benefit the clients. For these reasons, we can eliminate — or at least table — (D) without checking the passage.

    Besides, if we had to check the passage, we'd see that this statement is false. On the same list that we used to justify (A), the author states that contingency fees align the interests of the client and lawyer, leading to an increase in the lawyer's diligence and commitment (P4, S6).

  5. E
    Usually contingency-fee agreements involve Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) Is this consistent with the main point or reflected in our notes?

    Well, our note for the second paragraph tells us that is where the author outlines the "[d]etails of [the] contingency fee proposal." If we do not recall these details, we may want to quickly check this paragraph to see whether this is supported.

    Upon checking the second paragraph, we'll see that the author only describes an "uplift" fee, which is based on a percentage of the normal fee (P2, S1), not a percentage of damages. Moreover, the author never says that most contingency-fee agreements are not "uplift" fee agreements. This answer plays off the type of contingency fee that most people are familiar with, but the passage never discussed this type!

What this tests

Question analytics

Based on historical answer selection rates for this question.

Answer choice distribution

  1. A Credited 50%
  2. B 23%
  3. C 4%
  4. D 4%
  5. E 19%

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