PrepTest 132

[lcid:3626] Prep Test 132 LSAT — Reading Comp — S3 Reading comp

Passage

Questions 21-28  .        Computers have long been utilized in the sphere  . of law in the form of word Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage Summary

Topic: Legal Studies


Paragraph 1

  • Paragraph note
    • An exciting prediction that hasn’t come to pass, and why
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Prediction - Computer programs that can practice law
    • Programs have fallen short
    • Why - Difficulty in resolving problems of meaning/applicability

Paragraph 2

  • Paragraph note
    • One failed approach is discussed
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Approach - Model law as set of rules to be applied
    • Why it failed - Requires interpretations of (sometimes intentionally) undefined laws/terms (far beyond capabilities)
    • Examples

Paragraph 3

  • Paragraph note
    • Another failed approach is discussed
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Approach - Case-based reasoning (compare to precedent)
    • Why it failed - Criteria for similarity set by developer; to work those similarities have to be found by computer system (apparently intractable)

Main Point: Unsurprisingly, attempts to make computer programs that can practice law have failed because of rules that have multiple interpretations and the difficulties in identifying similar precedent.

Key Lines?

Lines 4-6 - An exciting prediction of a product

Lines 8-10 - The products have fallen short

Lines 13-16 - Key reasons they have unsurprisingly failed

Lines 18-23 - One approach to developing the product

Lines 23-25 - Why it failed

Lines 41-44 - Another approach to developing the product

Lines 54-57 - Why it failed

Meta-Structure?

Examples - Paragraph 2 goes into several examples to back up its general contention that these legal programs fail because of interpretation issues. It’s a small part of the passage meant to back up a contention that is only part of the main point, so these Examples don’t define the passage, but it’s likely we’ll get a question or two about them.

Last Thoughts?

A key element as we work through the questions is going to be figuring out which paragraph holds the information key to answering it. While Paragraphs 2 and 3 focus on different approaches to developing the lawyer-replacement programs, there are some similarities between them. They both deal with issues of interpretation - either key legal concepts/language, or cases with similar details. As such, we should really think about which of the two approaches a given question is likely to be asking about before we spend time looking back to the passage!

Question prompt

In the passage as Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: B

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

Question Type

Legal

Strategy Overview

Review the main point and how the Author goes about proving it, then find an answer that lines up with that

Answer Anticipation

This question type generally reflects a bit of the main point, as well as how the Author goes about proving it. As such, we should start with the main point, then think about the argument as a whole and how it proceeds, and then find an answer that lines up with it.For the main point, we can check the answer we selected for Question #21. And our answer to Question #22 more or less reflects the method of reasoning present in the passage!Putting these together, we can say that the Author argues that computer programs (unsurprisingly) can’t independently provide expert legal advice because, based on the two approaches attempted, there are too many nuances to legal language and precedent for such a system to work effectively. This was shown by looking at why the two approaches failed. Let’s find an answer reflecting all of this.

Answer choices

  1. A
    arguing that computers can Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    (A) (Lines 49-50; Lines 54-55) This answer seems to be trying to fool you based on the assertion that the last paragraph talks about programs “currently in development.” However, the Author notes that these all have problems, and there’s no indication that the next round of programs won’t have the same issues. In fact, the Author calls the problems they face “apparently intractable,” suggesting that she doesn’t see them being resolved. And the other approach had issues that couldn’t be resolved “in the foreseeable future.”

  2. B
    indicating that the law Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B matches the stem

    (B) (Lines 14-16) The Author ends Paragraph 1 by saying that (unsurprisingly) legal reasoning systems don’t work because of “difficulty in resolving problems involving the meaning and applicability” of laws and cases. From there, it dives into two specific approaches to solving this, both of which didn’t work. As such, the Author is concerned with showing that the law has subtle nuances - of language; of similarity between cases - that legal reasoning systems have problems with, making this the correct answer.

  3. C
    demonstrating that computers are Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) This answer is an even-more wrong version of answer choice (A), in that it talks about the issues being resolved soon (“approaching the point”) instead of at some point in the future.

  4. D
    suggesting that, because the Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) (Lines 49-53) The Author argues that the designers of case-based reasoners have to program in their criteria for what makes a case similar - and that’s a problem for these programs. So not only does this answer only deal with one of two approaches mentioned in the passage, it highlights something as a necessity that the Author calls a problem.

  5. E
    defending the use of Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) (Lines 1-4) The Author starts the passage by outlining a large number of ways that computers are useful in the legal profession, but she then pivots to talking about the failure of legal reasoning systems. As such, her primary concern isn’t arguing that computers are helpful to the profession, but rather that they’re failing the profession in some way.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion