PrepTest 101

[lcid:3500] Prep Test 101 LSAT — Reading Comp — S1 Reading comp

Passage

Questions 14-20  .        In recent years, scholars have begun to use social  . science tools to analyze court opinions. Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage Summary

Topic: Legal


Paragraph 1

  • Paragraph note
    • Author's view on using social science techniques to analyze court cases (example in sex-discrimination cases, but the potential of its "outcomes analysis" is exaggerated)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Views of scholars who have recently used social science techniques to analyze court opinions:
      • Traditional legal research doesn't help real people with legal problems (second sentence)
    • Example of a study using social science techniques:
      • Zirkel and Schoenfeld have used social science tools to analyze case law surrounding discrimination against women employees in higher ed (third sentence)
    • Author's view on Zirkel and Schoenfeld's studies:
      • Their studies show that social science tools can help scholars, lawyers, and prospective plaintiffs (fourth sentence)
      • Their endorsement of "outcomes analysis" is mistaken (last sentence)
    • Author's attitude: "justifiably criticized" (second sentence); "may not be representative" (second sentence); "arcane matters" (second sentence); "studies have demonstrated" (fourth sentence); "may be used" (fourth sentence); "seems misguided" (last sentence)

Paragraph 2

  • Paragraph note
    • Author's criticism of outcomes analysis (ignores differences between cases, so it's not useful to plaintiffs)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • List of problems with outcomes analysis, according to the author:
      • Problem 1: It's not useful to simply count the number of successful and unsuccessful plaintiffs because prospective plaintiffs will believe they are right and will prevail anyway (first through second sentences)
      • Problem 2: The details of cases are very different from each other (
      • Certain factors can make it much more likely the plaintiff will win in academic sex discrimination cases (fourth sentence)
    • Examples of differences between cases, according to the author:
      • The quality of evidence and attitude of the judge (third sentence)
    • Examples of meaningful differences between cases that make it much more likely the plaintiff will win in academic sex discrimination cases, according to the author:
      • Serious procedural violations and written admissions of discriminatory practices (fourth sentence)
    • Author's attitude: "fundamental concern" (first sentence); "assumption" (first sentence) "odds are clearly against" (second sentence); "not swayed" (second sentence); "lawsuits are so different" (third sentence); "is of marginal assistance" (third sentence); "ignores the fact" (fourth sentence)

Paragraph 3

  • Paragraph note
    • Author on advantages two new approaches ("policy capturing" and analyzing trial transcripts over a specific period)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Author's list of two new, more advantageous approaches to sex-discrimination cases:
      • Approach 1: "Policy capturing," in which variables in each opinion are identified and analyzed using multivariate analysis to determine whether variables predict the outcome of the lawsuit (second sentence)
      • Approach 2: Analyzing trial transcripts of a particular kind of case during a specified period (fourth sentence)
    • Examples of variables in "policy capturing," according to the author:
      • The frequency of employer evaluations of the plaintiff's performance, training of evaluators, and kind of evaluation (second sentence)
    • Examples of variables in the second approach, according to the author:
      • Nature of conduct, consequences for employers, nature of the remedy, factors that contributed to verdict, kind of evidence necessary for the plaintiff to win (fourth sentence)
    • Author's views on the advantages of the two approaches:
      • Policy capturing identifies factors that contribute to plaintiff's success or failure and attempts to explain why a suit came out the way it did (third sentence)
      • The second approach's timescale limited, but is helpful (last sentence)
    • Author's attitude: "more useful applications" (first sentence); "advantage of policy-capturing research" (third sentence); "attempts to explain the reason" (third sentence); "identifies factors that contribute" (third sentence); "identify variables" (fourth sentence); "assist potential plaintiffs" (fifth sentence)

Main Point: The utility of outcomes analysis for plaintiffs in sex discrimination cases has been exaggerated, while policy capturing and review of trial transcripts are two more promising ways of deploying social science techniques to assist such plaintiffs.

Key Lines?

Paragraph 1, Sentence 1 (P1, S1) - Statement of topic

P1, S5 - Old approach: outcomes analysis

P2, S1 - First problem with outcomes analysis

P2, S3 - Second problem with outcomes analysis

P3, S2 - New approach1: policy capturing

P3, S4 - New approach 2: trial transcript analysis

Meta-Structure?

Old Approach/New Approach: This passage uses an Old Approach/New Approach Meta-Structure.* The author describes Zirkel and Schoenfeld's enthusiasm for outcomes analysis in the effort to analyze higher education sex discrimination cases, but the author says their enthusiasm for this approach is misplaced. The author then describes two "new" approaches to predicting sex discrimination cases with social science methods, "policy capturing" and review of trial transcripts. The author argues that approaches are more helpful than the "old" approach.

When a passage utilizes an Old Approach/New Approach Meta-Structure, the main point is generally the author’s opinion on the new approach. The author didn't summarize their opinion on the new approaches for us, so we summarized the author’s opinions ourselves: "The utility of outcomes analysis for plaintiffs in sex discrimination cases has been exaggerated, while policy capturing and review of trial transcripts are two more promising ways of deploying social science techniques to assist such plaintiffs."

*OK, OK. It seems like all the approaches described in this passage are relatively new. Still, this passage fits the basic model of Old Approach (that the author doesn't like)/New Approach (that the author prefers). But, as is often the case with passages that use a Critical Meta-Structure, other Meta-Structures in this family could describe this passage. We could certainly call this passage a Correcting the Record passage. You could even stretch a bit and call this a Problem/Solution passage (problem: predicting outcomes in sex-discrimination cases; solutions: the three approaches described).

Last Thoughts?

This is a passage that has a largely legal topic but that brings in elements of social science. The author has a clear viewpoint and lays out their reasons for it while criticizing one method of legal analysis and endorsing two others. It is a somewhat dry passage, but the author's intention is clear, and the passage's organization plays directly to that intention.

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

Strategy Overview

Refer to notes or what you highlighted/underlined to locate where the passage discusses Zirkel and Schoenfeld, and refer to the relevant part of the passage as needed to find that answer choice that must be true

Answer Anticipation

For questions that ask us to infer, from a few details in the passage, a statement that must be true, quickly finding and reviewing those details is critical. That is why we make brief notes describing the role of each paragraph and highlight or underline definitions and the minor Meta-Structures — doing so helps us find the salient information efficiently and reliably. Once we review that part of the passage, we can look through the answer choices to see which one is best supported by what we reviewed. Since the question stem asks us to make an inference, the correct answer probably won't restate something from the passage. Instead, the question will likely require us to draw a connection between a few different pieces of information.Here, the question asks about Zirkel and Schoenfeld. Our note for the first paragraph is, "Author's view on using social science techniques to analyze court cases (example in sex-discrimination cases, but the potential of its "outcomes analysis" is exaggerated)." We know Zirkel and Schoenfeld are associated with outcomes analysis, so our notes point us to the first paragraph.There, the author says Zirkel and Schoenfeld apply social science methods to the analysis of sex discrimination cases in higher education. They particularly champion outcomes analysis. The author thinks this endorsement is misguided (P1 S5). Let's look for an answer choice that can be inferred from these ideas.

Answer choices

  1. A
    They were the first Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    (A) Can we infer this claim from the facts we reviewed about Zirkel and Schoenfeld?

    No. The author merely says that Zirkel and Schoenfeld apply social science methods to legal analysis and champion outcomes analysis. Our review didn't indicate they were the first to take this approach. Plus, the answer choice uses bold, SCOTUS-y language that is hard to support for a Must Be True answer choice. For these reasons, we can eliminate — or at least table — (A) and advance to the next answer choice without reviewing the passage.

    And besides, we wouldn't find support for this claim if we re-read the entire passage. The author never claims Zirkel and Schoenfeld were the first to use social science tools to analyze court opinions. So, we definitely can't infer the claim (A) makes.

  2. B
    They confined their studies Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) Can we infer this claim from the facts we reviewed about Zirkel and Schoenfeld?

    No. The author states that Zirkel and Schoenfeld advocate outcomes analysis (P1 S5), but we didn't review that this is the only method they have studied. Moreover, the answer choice uses bold, SCOTUS-y language that expresses a high degree of exclusivity ("confined"). Such claims are hard to support for a Must Be True answer choice. For these reasons, we can eliminate — or at least table — (B) and advance to the next answer choice without reviewing the passage.

    Besides, we wouldn't find support for this claim even if we re-read the entire passage. The author never claims Zirkel and Schoenfeld only studied outcomes analysis. So, we definitely can't infer the claim (B) makes.

  3. C
    They saw no value Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) Can we infer this claim from the facts we reviewed about Zirkel and Schoenfeld?

    No. The author certainly implies that Zirkel and Schoenfeld found traditional legal research to be inadequate for their purposes and for those of plaintiffs (P1, S2). But it's a bit of a stretch to say they found no value in traditional legal methods. This answer choice uses bold, SCOTUS-y language ("no value"). Such claims are unlikely to show up in the correct answer to a Must Be True question. For these reasons, we can eliminate — or at least table — (C) and move on to the next answer choice without reviewing the passage.

    Besides, we wouldn't find support for this claim even if we re-read the entire passage. The author never claims Zirkel and Schoenfeld saw no value in traditional legal analysis, especially when the passage only says the cases studied traditionally "may" not be representative (P1, S2). We definitely can't infer the claim (C) makes.

  4. D
    They rejected policy capturing Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) Can we infer this claim from the facts we reviewed about Zirkel and Schoenfeld?

    No. The author says that Zirkel and Schoenfeld applied social science methods and championed outcomes analysis (P1, S3-5). But our review didn't reveal their opinions on "policy capturing." Plus, this answer choice uses bold, SCOTUS-y language that expresses a definitive selection ("rejected"). Such claims are hard to support and thus not likely to be found in the correct answer to a Must Be True question. For these reasons, we can eliminate — or at least table — (D) and advance to the next answer choice without reviewing the passage.

    Besides, we wouldn't find support for this claim even if we re-read the entire passage. The author never states or implies Zirkel and Schoenfeld's attitude toward policy capturing. So, we definitely can't infer the claim (D) makes.

  5. E
    They believed that the Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E matches the stem

    (E) Can we infer this claim from the facts we reviewed about Zirkel and Schoenfeld?

    Yes. The truth of this answer choice is implied in the first paragaph, where the author says that Zirkel and Schoenfeld's research has demonstrated that social science methods are useful to scholars, lawyers, and plaintiffs (P1, S4). In the next sentence, the author points out that Zirkel and Schoenfeld are particularly fond of outcomes analysis (P1, S5). These facts impliy that Zirkel and Schoenfeld think the information generated by outcomes analysis specifically will be useful for plaintiffs.

    Because this answer choice can be inferred from the information we have already reviewed, we can be sure this is the right answer.

What this tests

Discussion

  • Please help 1 reply

    Started by yckim2180

View all discussions Start a discussion