PrepTest 131

[lcid:3623] Prep Test 131 LSAT — Reading Comp — S4 Reading comp

Passage

Questions 9-15  .        A proficiency in understanding, applying, and even  . formulating statutes—the actual texts of laws enacted  . Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage Summary

Topic: Legal


Paragraph 1

  • Paragraph note
    • Problem with legal education (too little time spent on understanding and applying statutes)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Author's view
      • Law school's current focus on analyzing case law gives students the impression that lawyers don't really interpret or imply statutes, which is, in fact, a vital skill that law school gives too little attention to (first and last sentences)
    • Author's attitude: "vital aspect" (first sentence); "given too little attention" (first sentence); "can give a law student the impression" (last sentence)

Paragraph 2

  • Paragraph note
    • Why statute interpretation is an essential skill (legal practice involves consulting laws with not-obvious meanings/applications; tax ? example)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Author's view:
      • Much of lawyers' practice involves interpreting and applying statutes, which have meanings and applications that are not always clear or obvious, so law students need to learn how to interpret statutes (first and last sentences)
    • Example of a situation where a lawyer would consult a statute, according to the author:
      • Business asking a tax question (second sentence)
    • Author's attitude: "does not depend" (first sentence); "clear" (third sentence); "transparent" (third sentence); "not always so obvious" (last sentence)

Paragraph 3

  • Paragraph note
    • Another skill statutory interpretation builds (synthesis: seeing how laws interrelate; helpful because most students specialize)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Comparisons, according to the author:
      • Law professors do more to help students analyze individual cases than to help students see how laws interrelate and form a coherent system (second sentence)
      • Studying statutes in one area will do more than case analysis to help students see how laws interrelate and form a coherent system (third sentence)
    • Author's view:
      • Seeing how laws interrelate and form a coherent system in one legal area will help students apply this ability to other areas, which is important because most lawyers specialize (fourth and last sentences)
    • Author's attitude: "would improve" (first sentence); "work hard" (first sentence); "favor" (second sentence); "would enable" (third sentence); "would then be able to apply this ability to synthesize in other areas" (fourth sentence); "especially important" (last sentence)

Paragraph 4

  • Paragraph note
    • Counterpoint (laws vary by region) and author's defense (some truth, but understanding is a skill that transfers)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Counterpoint:
      • Statutes vary throughout the country, so statutory analysis is not a good idea for national schools (first and second sentences)
    • Author's view:
      • Knowledge isn't transferable, but skills acquired in mastering one set of laws are (last sentence)
    • Author's attitude: "possible argument" (first sentence); "some truth" (second sentence); "could seem to be an inappropriate investment" (second sentence); "the skills acquired in mastering a particular set of statutes are" (last sentence); "important undertaking" (last sentence)

Main Point: The current focus on analyzing cases in law school doesn't prepare law students for all aspects of their practice, so focusing on interpreting, synthesizing, and applying states would improve legal education.

Meta-Structure?

Problem/Solution: This passage best fits the Problem/Solution Meta-Structure.* The author kicks this passage off with a problem — the current focus of law schools excludes statutory interpretation, a key skill set that attorneys need. And while the author never explicitly states it, they strongly imply a solution — teach those skills! While the author doesn't make that recommendation explicit, they talk about its benefits and defend it against a possible counterargument, so we should view this as a Problem/Solution passage.

In such a passage, the author's preferred solution is the main point. And since the author goes into some detail on which specific skills related to statutes should be taught, those could be reflected in the main point, as well.

*That said, you could certainly call this an Old Approach/New Approach passage, with the "Old Approach" being law schools' current focus on case law and the "New Approach" including statute analysis. We just need to remember that there's no indication that the author wants to throw out the study of case law — just ensure that students are also learning skills related to statutory law.

Last Thoughts?It's rare to see a central solution to a problem implied instead of directly stated, as we see here, but it does happen. When the author argues that an action has benefits (and defends it from counterarguments), you can generally infer that they want to perform that action, even if they never say that explicitly.

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

Reiterate the main point as we summarized it after reading through the passage, then find the answer that best matches it

Answer Anticipation

As discussed in the Meta-Structure section above, this passage utilizes a Problem/Solution Meta-Structure. In such a Meta-Structure, the main point is generally the author's preferred solution. And since the author goes into some detail on which specific skills related to statutes should be taught, those could be reflected in the main point, as well. So, the main point is: "The current focus on analyzing cases in law school doesn't prepare law students for all aspects of their practice, so focusing on interpreting, synthesizing, and applying states would improve legal education."Let's look for an answer choice that captures the same ideas as our anticipated main point.

Answer choices

  1. A
    In spite of the Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    (A) Does this answer choice capture the same ideas as our anticipated main point?

    Not quite. But this is a great trap answer, as it hits a lot of the major points in the passage and even reflects the counterpoint. However, note the final clause part of the recommended solution in this answer choice — the implementation of a standard national curriculum in statutory law. That would imply that all law schools are teaching the same curriculum, which isn't what the author says. In fact, the author talks about regional schools teaching the statutes relevant to their jurisdiction as a good thing (P4, S2), which would be preempted by a standard national curriculum. It's the opposing point that argues against including statutory law as a "standard part of law school curricula" (P4, S1), but the author doesn't go in the other direction in their rebuttal.

  2. B
    Since the skills promoted Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) Does this answer choice capture the same ideas as our anticipated main point?

    Nope. The passage claims that interpreting and applying statutes is "given too little" focus in law schools and that this work makes up "much of" a lawyer's practice (P1, S1-S2). However, that's not enough to say that these skills are more important than the skills learned through case analysis. Analyzing cases might make up as much or more of a lawyer's work, while much of that work still involves statutes. Additionally, the author never ranks the importance of the two skills, so this answer features an unsupported comparison.

  3. C
    Although statutes typically vary Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C matches the stem

    (C) Does this answer choice capture the same ideas as our anticipated main point?

    Yes! This answer addresses the author's solution to a problem the author identified — training in statutory law since this makes up an important part of a lawyer's work but doesn't currently get taught in law school. It brings up the specific skills that the author believes can be developed (interpretation and synthesis), and it even raises the objection that the author addresses. This answer hits all the major parts of the author's argument, so it's the correct answer. We'd be justified in selecting it and advancing straight to the next question.

  4. D
    In the theoretical world Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) Does this answer choice capture the same ideas as our anticipated main point?

    Not at all. The author's argument is based on explaining the importance of studying statutory law in law school instead of focusing only on case law, so this answer's focus on case law misses the point.

  5. E
    Law schools generally are Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) Does this answer choice capture the same ideas as our anticipated main point?

    Not quite, as this answer is a bit too extreme. The author seems to believe that law schools do a good enough job of teaching students the skills necessary to analyze legal information in cases, just not in statutes.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion