PrepTest 116

[lcid:3563] Prep Test 116 LSAT — Reading Comp — S4 Reading comp

Passage

Questions 1-7  .        Is it necessary for defense lawyers to believe that  . the clients they defend are innocent Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage Summary

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.

Key Lines?

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

Meta-Structure?

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.

Last Thoughts?

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.)

Question prompt

Which one of the 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

Answer choices

  1. A
    Some legal scholars defend Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    (A) This answer choice fails to capture both the structure and author's opinion. First, it misrepresents the passage's structure and thereby misrepresents the passage's main point. This answer choice makes it seem as though the passage's main point was to critique "[s]ome legal scholars." But the author wasn't focused on criticizing the views held by the legal scholars mentioned in the first paragraph. The author didn't discuss how their beliefs are unsound or inaccurate. Rather than making a negative case against the legal scholars, this author structured the passage around making a positive case for the author's position. This answer choice also errs by omitting the author's ultimate view about defense lawyers' duties and consequently overlooks essential elements in this passage.

    Second, this answer choice misconstrues the author's opinion, so it cannot accurately capture the author's main point. The author never claimed that the legal scholars were making a "morally questionable" case. If anything, the author claims that the legal scholars ignore an ethical duty to society (lines 20-23), not a moral obligation.

  2. B
    Defense lawyers should put Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) This represents the legal scholars' view, as described in the first paragraph (lines 7-11). The author ultimately reaches a different answer to the question of whether it's necessary for defense lawyers to believe that their clients are innocent, so this answer choice does not express the author's main point in the passage.

  3. C
    In a democracy, all Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) Like (B), this answer choice also reflects the legal scholars' view, as outlined in the first paragraph (lines 11-14). Because the author ultimately draws a different conclusion than those legal scholars, this does not accurately express the author's main point.

  4. D
    Lawyers should be mindful Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D matches the stem

    (D) This answer choice is very close to the conclusion the author draws in the third paragraph. As the author asserts in the concluding sentences, defense lawyers might not need to take every case offered (opening up the possibility that a defense lawyer need not represent a person they know is guilty). The author also claims that lawyers should "advocate[] for the rights of the defendant given the facts of the case" (lines 46-51). So, it's accurate to say the main point is lawyers should "base the decision as to whether, and how, to defend a client on the facts of the case."

    Even if you were looking for the author's answer to the initial question of, "Is it necessary for defense lawyers to believe that the clients they defend are innocent of the charges against them?" (which would be this passage's subsidiary conclusion, not the main conclusion), this would still be the only adequate answer choice. Although this answer choice never states that a defense lawyer shouldn't attempt to prove that a guilty client is innocent, it does accurately capture key features of that answer. This answer choice captures why the author feels that defense attorneys shouldn't attempt to prove that guilty clients are innocent (the lawyer's "duty to society"). It captures the author's belief that this duty impacts the extent to which the lawyer can advocate for a guilty client in court ("how … to defend a client on the facts of the case"). And it captures the author's later suggestion that lawyers may not need to take a guilty client's case ("whether … to defend a client on the facts of a case"). It may not precisely map to the author's answer, but it is the only answer choice to reflect the ideas the author conveyed when providing that answer.

  5. E
    Defense attorneys are obligated Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) This misconstrues the author's opinion. The author of this passage suggests that defense attorneys are not required to defend any client who requests their services. In the third paragraph, the author argues that defense lawyers might not need to take every case offered, opening up the possibility that a defense lawyer need not represent a person they know is guilty (lines 46-49). Since this answer choice misconstrues the author's opinion, it cannot adequately capture the author's main point.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion