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

The author discusses the 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 synthesis reference in the passage, consult notes, and choose an answer choice based on your understanding of that reference in the passage's overall argument

Answer Anticipation

This question asks us why the author inserted the discussion of synthesis into the third paragraph. Unless a detail conflicts with the paragraph's purpose, the author probably mentioned that detail to advance the paragraph's role. So, reviewing the third paragraph's role, which we hopefully wrote down in the notes on our scratch paper, will generally reveal why the author included that detail.Our note for the third paragraph is, "Another skill statutory interpretation builds (synthesis: seeing how laws interrelate; helpful because most students specialize)." From that note, we can see that synthesis is the central topic of the third paragraph. The entire purpose of that paragraph is to argue that synthesis is another skill that teaching statutory law would improve. This supports the author's main point by providing another reason law schools should teach statutory law. Let's head to the answer choices and find one reflecting that.

Answer choices

  1. A
    identify and describe one Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A matches the stem

    (A) Does this say the purpose of discussing synthesis is to show how synthesis is another skill that teaching statutory law would improve and provide another reason why law schools should teach statutory law?

    In generic terms, yes! Synthesis is a skill — or a "benefit" — that would result if law schools began teaching statutory law — the change advocated in the passage. So, this is the correct answer. After all, the purpose of the passage is to advocate for the inclusion of the study of statutory law in law school curricula, so most of the passage should have been highlighting the benefits of doing so, making this a great answer just for that reason. The third paragraph starts by saying that synthesis is another skill teaching statutory law would improve, reinforcing this as the correct answer. We can justifiably select (A) and advance straight to the next question.

  2. B
    indicate that law schools Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) Does this say the purpose of discussing synthesis is to show how synthesis is another skill that teaching statutory law would improve and provide another reason why law schools should teach statutory law?

    No, so we can cross off (B). The third paragraph does highlight a skill that law schools prioritize over synthesis (P3, S2), but it never explains why they do this. Moreover, the overall purpose of the paragraph is to highlight why synthesis can be improved through statutory law training — not to show why law schools value different skills.

  3. C
    argue for the greater Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) Does this say the purpose of discussing synthesis is to show how synthesis is another skill that teaching statutory law would improve and provide another reason why law schools should teach statutory law?

    Nope, so we can cross off (C). While the passage does argue that this skill is important and contrasts it specifically with the study of case law (P3, S2-S3), there's no indication that synthesis is of greater importance than that other skill. Rather, synthesis is also important and shouldn't be neglected, as it currently is.

  4. D
    explain why this skill Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) Does this say the purpose of discussing synthesis is to show how synthesis is another skill that teaching statutory law would improve and provide another reason why law schools should teach statutory law?

    Negative, so we can cross off (D). In fact, this answer reverses the author's argument. The author says that studying statutory law would improve this skill (P3, S3-S5), not that this skill is necessary and thus would be a prerequisite for studying statutory law.

  5. E
    provide an example of Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) Does this say the purpose of discussing synthesis is to show how synthesis is another skill that teaching statutory law would improve and provide another reason why law schools should teach statutory law?

    Nope, so we can cross off (E). In fact, the second paragraph includes a specific example of statutory law being used in practice (P2, S2) — the third paragraph does not.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion