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

The policy-capturing approach differs Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: D

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 policy capturing and review of trial transcripts, 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 find a specific detail mentioned in the passage, quickly finding and reviewing that piece of information is paramount. 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.Here, the question asks about policy capturing and the review of trial transcripts. The former is discussed in P3, S2-3 and the latter is discussed in P3, S4-5. The question stem asks about the difference between these two methods. Reviewing this part of the passage or our notes, we can recall that policy capturing involves reviewing judges' opinions, identifying factors that played into the decision, and analyzing those factors to see which contributed most strongly to the outcome (P3, S2-3). The latter approach involves reading transcripts of all the cases litigated during a specific period and identifying the factors that played into each decision (P3, S4-5). So we can anticipate two major differences between these two methods: (1) the former uses judges' opinions, and the latter uses a bunch of trial transcripts, and (2) the former is not limited by a specific period, and the latter is.Let’s look for one or both of these differences in the answer choices.

Answer choices

  1. A
    makes use of detailed Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    (A) Does this answer choice match one or both of our anticipations of the differences between policy capturing and review of trial transcripts?

    No. The passage doesn’t specify which method uses a greater number of cases. If anything, by limiting the review to just one time period, the latter probably looks at fewer cases. So, we can eliminate this answer choice.

  2. B
    focuses more directly on Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) Does this answer choice match one or both of our anticipations of the differences between policy capturing and review of trial transcripts?

    No. The passage doesn’t say whether one method focuses more directly on issues that litigants care about. In fact, the author suggests both approaches identify factors that help litigants make decisions (P3, S3, S5). Because it lacks support in the passage, we can eliminate this answer choice.

  3. C
    analyzes information that is Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) Does this answer choice match one or both of our anticipations of the differences between policy capturing and review of trial transcripts?

    No. The passage states that the trial transcript method is limited to a specific time period (P3 S4-5), and one would expect that time period to be more recent if the method is to be of use to potential plaintiffs. But it doesn’t say that policy capturing does not focus on recent cases. So, we can’t say whether one method focuses on more recent cases than the other.

    Because it lacks support in the passage, we can eliminate this answer choice.

  4. D
    allows assessment of aspects Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D matches the stem

    (D) Does this answer choice match one or both of our anticipations of the differences between policy capturing and review of trial transcripts?

    Yes. We know from our notes that the two methods differ in the kinds of evidence they analyze. Policy capturing analyzes judges' opinions, while review of trial transcripts analyzes the transcripts of the entire trial (P3, S2, S4). This means that the transcript method assesses aspects of the case captured by the transcript but not mentioned in the judge’s opinion, just as the answer choice says. Because it matches one of our anticipations, we can be sure this is the right choice. We can select it and advance to the final question.

  5. E
    eliminates any distortion due Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) Does this answer choice match one or both of our anticipations of the differences between policy capturing and review of trial transcripts?

    No. This answer choice is a complete non sequitur. The author never discusses the personal bias of the researchers. This answer choice lacks support in the passage, and we can eliminate it.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion