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

It can be inferred 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

Review the notes and to recall author's views, then find an answer that must be true according to the passage

Answer Anticipation

This question stem asks us to infer a belief the author would agree with. The author's views — especially those about arguing that a client is innocent — are described at length throughout the passage, so reviewing the passage or anticipating what the correct answer will say is not a wise investment of our limited time. Instead, we can remind ourselves of the main point and anything else we noted about the author's views before assessing the answer choices. We'll eliminate each one we know is wrong (for instance, if we know it contradicts with the author's views) and table any choice that includes a detail we don't remember reading. If we see a detail we recall, even if vaguely, we can review the passage to see if we can find the supporting text.

Answer choices

  1. A
    should sincerely believe that Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A matches the stem

    (A) According to the author, a defense attorney who argues that a client is innocent "should sincerely believe a client that the client may be innocent." This is the author's answer to the central question in this passage and is consistent with the author's main point. Our understanding of the passage's Meta-Structure and main point should be enough for us to confidently select this answer choice, and we do not need to review the passage to find the supporting text. However, if you did review the passage, you could use your notes (or even the line reference in the previous question) to find that the author answered the question in the second paragraph. In lines 26-28, the author says, "lawyers who are convinced that their clients are guilty should not undertake to demonstrate their innocence." Ergo (if we take the contrapositive of the previous statement), if a lawyer does attempt to demonstrate their client is innocent, that lawyer should not be convinced that their clients are guilty.

  2. B
    would be right to Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) Assuming they didn't select (A) and move on to the next question, an efficient test-taker would eliminate this one as soon as they saw that it conflicted with the author's main point. The author believes that an attorney should alter whether and how they defend their client based on the facts of the case. Arguing that a client is innocent "even if the attorney knows that the client is actually guilty" is entirely antithetical to the main point, and this answer choice should be eliminated.

  3. C
    is assuming that role Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) Assuming they didn't select (A) and move on to the next question, an efficient test-taker would eliminate this as soon it invoked the idea of being a "mouthpiece for the client." This concept is associated with the legal scholars from the first paragraph (lines 15-19), not the author, so it is unlikely to appear in the correct answer. If you did review the passage (or CTRL/Command+F "mouthpiece"), you'd see that the author doesn't think that attorneys should be just "mouthpieces for a defendant." Instead, the author wants attorneys to base their advocacy on the facts of the case (lines 49-51). Therefore, whether this hypothetical attorney acted merely as a "mouthpiece" depends on whether the client is guilty. If so, the attorney probably would be acting as a mouthpiece. If not, the attorney may be discharging their duties to the client, court, and society. Without this information, we can't say whether the attorney is just a "mouthpiece."

  4. D
    has favored the obligation Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) Assuming they didn't select (A) and move on to the next question, a test-taker may give this one some consideration. After all, the author believes attorneys owe an obligation to society and their clients, and sometimes these duties conflict. But concluding the attorney "favored their obligation to the client over that to society" requires us to know that client is guilty. If so, the author probably would conclude that the attorney favored the duty to the client over society, since the defense would require the attorney to make false claims to the court. If not, the attorney may be discharging their duties to the client, court, and society. Without knowing that the client is guilty, we can't say whether the attorney favored their obligation to the client over society.

  5. E
    has typically not researched Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) Assuming they didn't select (A) and move on to the next question, a test-taker may give this one some consideration. After all, the author claimed that attorneys must undergo a "careful analysis of the facts." However, this answer choice presupposes that any careful researching of the facts will reveal that defendant is guilty. The author says that some lawyers sincerely believe that defendants are innocent after such research is undertaken (lines 37-39). So it can't be true that any attorney who argues that their client is innocent hasn't researched the facts thoroughly.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion