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: E

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

Question Type

Legal

Answer choices

  1. A
    confident that it enables Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    (A) This answer choice misstates which responsibilities are "competing" with each other. It's not the responsibilities to the court and society that are in competition. As the author states, those responsibilities are intertwined ("but no less to the court and, by extension, to society," lines 22-23). Instead, it's responsibilities to the defendants and the court/society that are in competition (see lines 23-26: "lawyers, great as their obligation to defendants is, should not, as officers of the court …"). For this reason, this answer choice is incorrect.

  2. B
    certain that it prevents Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) Notice how many "shoulds" there are in this passage. The author believes that the obligation to the courts and society should lead lawyers to change how they advocate on behalf of guilty clients (lines 30-37). The author believes the obligation to the courts and society should mean that lawyers can choose not to represent guilty defendants (lines 46-49). These "shoulds" are sometimes referred to as "normative" — they describe an ideal situation, how the world should work. But do they indicate that these obligations actually "prevent defense lawyers from representing clients whom they know to be guilty"? We don't know! Moreover, the author clearly believes that defense lawyers sometimes can represent guilty clients but that the lawyers' obligations should prevent them from arguing that the defendant is innocent (lines 26-28).

    Abstracting out a bit, we should recall that the author's answer to the question of whether it's necessary for defense lawyers to believe that their clients are innocent was not a simple "yes." It was a more nuanced, consider-all-the-facts-and-both-of-your-obligations-before-deciding-what-to-do take. In its firm conviction that lawyers are prevented from representing clients whom they know to be guilty, this answer choice gets much closer to a simple "yes" than the author does in this passage.

  3. C
    satisfied that it helps Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) The author briefly mentions lawyers uncovering facts of the case at various points in the passage (lines 33-34, 45), but there is no expressed or implied relationship between these obligations and uncovering facts. As the author says in the second paragraph, these obligations change how a lawyer should represent defendants they know to be guilty. Still, the obligations don't necessarily have anything to do with uncovering facts.

  4. D
    pleased that it does Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) If you do not recall reading about "common defense strategies used by defense lawyers," there's a reason for that. This topic was never discussed in this passage at all. For this reason, we cannot say that this accurately describes the author's attitude towards the twofold obligations.

    If an answer choice brings up a topic that you do not recall reading about, you should not re-read the passage to see if you missed that topic. Most times, you will not recall that topic because that topic did not appear in the passage. It's a much better use of your limited time to defer or eliminate that answer choice and look at the rest.

  5. E
    convinced that it does Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E matches the stem

    (E) It is accurate to say that the author is convinced these potentially competing obligations "do not represent a conflict of interest for defense lawyers." The author frames these obligations as potentially competing (see lines 23-26: "lawyers, great as their obligation to defendants is, should not, as officers of the court …") but ultimately concludes that the lawyer can discharge their duty to the court and society by modifying how they represent guilty defendants, while still providing those defendants the "best defense" (lines 42-46). So the author believes lawyers can uphold their obligations to both defendants and courts/society, even when they choose not to represent guilty defendants or limit how they represent them.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion