PrepTest 150

[lcid:3699] Prep Test 150 LSAT — Reading Comp — S4 Reading comp

Passage

Questions 21-27 Passage A  .       Why do some trial court judges oppose conducting  . independent research to help them make Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage Summary

Topic: Legal


Passage A

Paragraph 1

  • Paragraph note
    • Trial court judges: Objections to conducting independent research
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
    • List of reasons to oppose independent research, according to some trial court judges:
      • It distorts the adversarial system (by undermining evidence and requiring an active judicial role) (second sentence)
      • Judges cannot conduct first-rate research (last sentence)

Paragraph 2

  • Paragraph note
    • Author: Shouldn't be a complete prohibition on judges' independent research; first reason why (scientific evidence not suited to trial courts)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
    • Author's view:
      • The judges' concerns "have some merit" but not enough to warrant altogether banning independent research (first sentence)
      • Independent research could help the judges avoid such errors (last sentence)
    • List of reasons to allow some independent research, according to the author:
      • Trial courts, where expert witnesses are prescreened and compensated by both parties, cannot guarantee reliable scientific evidence (third and fourth sentences)
      • Allowing unreliable scientific evidence can also affect future cases, which can detract from the legitimacy of the court system (fifth and sixth sentences)
    • Author's attitude: "some merit" (first sentence); "do not justify an absolute prohibition" (first sentence); "there are reasons to sacrifice adversarial values" (second sentence"; "particularly ill-suited" (third sentence); "virtually ensures conflicting and partisan testimony" (fourth sentence); "exert considerable influence on future cases" (sixth sentence); "erroneous decisions detract from the legitimacy of the system" (sixth sentence); "could help judges avoid such errors

Paragraph 3

  • Paragraph note
    • Author: Second reason why (the structure of the trial will guide independent research)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
    • List of reasons to allow some independent research, according to the author:
      • The trial's structure will guide any potential research (first sentence)
      • The research will supplement rather than replace the evidence (last sentence)
      • The parties will still present the evidence, which will reduce the probability of an outlandish result (first sentence)
    • Author's attitude: "reducing the possibility of a judge's reaching outlandish results" (first sentence)

Passage B

Paragraph 1

  • Paragraph note
    • Author: Appellate courts should not conduct their own research of scientific literature
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
    • Point of intersection with passage A:
      • The author is concerned with appellate courts, not trial courts (which were the focus of passage A)
    • Author's attitude: "appellate courts should resist the temptation to conduct their own independent research" (first sentence)

Paragraph 2

  • Paragraph note
    • Author: Appellate courts lack tools available at the trial level for examining the facts
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
    • Point of intersection with passage A:
      • Both authors acknowledge the possibility that independent research could be unreliable (see "some merit" in passage A)
      • The author of passage B seems to have a lot of faith in the trial court’s adversarial system and its ability to produce reliable scientific testimony; however, the author of passage A said the adversarial system is “particularly ill-suited” to produce reliable scientific testimony
    • Comparison between trial courts and appellate courts, according to the author:
      • Unlike trial courts, appellate courts don't hear live testimony and cross-examination, which means parties can't test witnesses' credibility (first through last sentences)
    • Author's attitude: "lack some of the critical tools available at the trial level" (second sentence); "greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth — cross-examination" (third sentence)

Paragraph 3

  • Paragraph note
    • Author: Appellate courts considering scientific literature undermines the trial court's fact-finding function
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
    • Author's view:
      • Evidence considered on the appellate level is not subject to rigorous tests the trial courts provide (first sentence)
      • So, literature considered for the first time at the appellate level undermines the trial court's fact-finding function (second sentence)
    • Author's attitude: "crucible of the adversarial system" (first sentence); "usurps the trial court's fact-finding function (second sentence); "potential unreliability" (last sentence)

Paragraph 4

  • Paragraph note
    • Author: If an appellate court conducts research into scientific literature, it ignores its function
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
    • Cause-and-effect relationship, according to the author:
      • Appellate courts conducting their own research into scientific literature would cause the courts to use their questionable research methods on evidence that should have been tested in the trial court (first and second sentences)
    • Author's attitude: "ignores its function" (first sentence); "substitutes its own questionable research results for evidence that should have been tested in the trial court" (first sentence); "applies with full force" (last sentence)

Main Points?

Passage A: Trial judges should not be wholly prohibited from researching scientific evidence.

Passage B: Appellate judges should not conduct their own research into scientific literature.

Key Lines?

Passage A:

Paragraph 2, Sentence 1 (P2, S1) - Author’s conclusion

P2, S2 - Author's first premise

P3, S1 - Author's second premise

Passage B:

P1, S1 - Author's conclusion

P2, S2 - Author's first premise

P3, S2 - Author's second premise

P4, S1 - Author's subsidiary conclusion

Meta-Structure? Relationship Between Passages?

Relationship: Different Scope: Passages A and B both discuss whether or not judges ought to conduct independent research. However, the scope of each argument is quite different. Passage A asks whether trial court judges should conduct their own research, whereas the author of passage B only seeks to make an argument about appellate judges*.

*A quick primer on trial courts/appellate courts if you overlooked or were confused by this distinction ... Suppose you want to want to sue someone who wronged you. You'll first bring that case to a trial court. Typically, a judge will hear your case, and a jury will make a decision about the evidence presented by you and the person you sued. Now, let's say the jury rendered a verdict, and that verdict didn't go your way. If you're lucky (and well-funded), you can appeal your case in an appellate court. However, the appellate court generally won't review the facts in your case. (This is what passage B means by the trial court's "fact-finding function," PB, P3, S2). But, the appellate court can review the trial judge's legal decisions, like whether pieces of evidence should have been presented to or excluded from the jury or whether the judge provided appropriate instructions to the jury.

Relationship: Opposing Views: However, there are a few points in which the scopes of the two passages overlap. In the second paragraph of passage B, the author discusses mechanisms available in the trial court, like live testimony, judges’ questioning of witnesses, and, especially, cross-examination. The author of passage B seems to have a lot of faith in these mechanisms’ ability to produce reliable scientific testimony; however, the author of passage A said the adversarial system is “particularly ill-suited” to produce reliable scientific testimony. Therefore, we can conclude that there is at least one clear point of disagreement between the authors: whether the trial court is a good place to produce reliable, scientific evidence.

Meta-Structure: Question/Answer: Passages A and B each seek to answer a similar question: should judges conduct independent research to aid their decision-making? Now, passage A asks if trial courts should conduct this research, while passage B asks if appellate courts should conduct this research. But, understanding that both passages are written to answer a question helps us determine each author's main point: the answer to their question.

Meta-Structure: Comparison: In Passage B, the author compares appellate courts with trial courts. The differences between the two are integral to the author's argument — mainly that trial courts allow for live testimony and cross-examination. In contrast, these tools are not available at the appellate level. The lack of opportunity to test any added evidence makes a strong case against allowing for independent research by appellate judges.

Last Thoughts?

Since this is a comparative passage, consider pausing before the questions to think about the main similarities and differences between the passages. In this case:

Differences:

Passage A:

Question: Should judges conduct their own research?

Scope: Trial judges

Answer: Yes (at least, it should not be completely prohibited)

Passage B:

Question: Should judges conduct their own research?

Scope: Appellate judges

Answer: No

Question prompt

It can be inferred 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

Consult your notes or passage to recall the authors' attitude about the topic in question, and find the answer that best reflects your understanding of the authors' opinions on that topic

Answer Anticipation

This question asks us to find the answer choice about judges conducting independent research that the authors would most likely agree with. Because judges conducting independent research is the central topic in both passages, this question stem doesn't provide any insight into the topic of the correct answer or where the supporting information might show up in the passages.This means the correct answer will likely relate to the authors' main points. As such, we'll need to rely on our big-picture understanding of the passages to answer this question. We should start by reminding ourselves of each passage's main point. We can also review any notes about the authors' attitude or any text we highlighted because it expressed the authors' opinion. After doing that, we can head to the answer choices, tabling those that don't line up with the authors' main points. For those answer choices that conform to the authors' main point, we'll use our notes and the passage to see if it's correct.

Answer choices

  1. A
    should be constrained by Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A matches the stem

    (A) Would both authors agree that this answer choice is true of the research conducted by judges?

    Yes! Both authors conclude that independent research should be "constrained." The author of passage A concludes that there should not be an "absolute prohibition" on independent research, which means such research should be constrained to only some cases. And the author of passage B concludes that independent research should be entirely excluded from appellate courts, as such courts lack mechanisms available to trial courts.

    This answer choice is consistent with both authors' main points, so we can review the passage to see if each author would agree with this statement. Digging deeper into the author of passage A's view, they maintain that the independent research of trial judges would not cause a problem because "a trial provides a structure that guides any potential independent research, reducing the possibility of a judge's reaching outlandish results" (Passage A, P3, S1). So, passage A's author believes a trial's structure acts as a constraining mechanism on judges' independent research. It seems evident that passage A's author would agree with this answer choice.

    Likewise, in passage B, the author offers high praise for the structure of trial courts, specifically live testimony and cross-examination (Passage B, P2, S2). The author describes these tools as "critical for arriving at a determination of the facts" (Passage B, P2, S2). So, passage B's author would also agree that, if there's any independent research, it must be constrained by live testimony and cross-examination in the trial court.

    So, we can find confirmation that both authors would agree with this statement. We can therefore select it and advance to the next question without assessing the remaining answer choices.

  2. B
    is typically confined to Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) Would both authors agree that this answer choice is true of the research conducted by judges?

    Nope. We can eliminate this because it conflicts with the author of passage B's criticism of appellate courts. The author of passage B describes the courts' research methods as "questionable." If such research was only based on standard, reliable sources, we would not have reason to believe the research is questionable.

  3. C
    replaces, rather than supplements, Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) Would both authors agree that this answer choice is true of the research conducted by judges?

    No. This answer choice directly conflicts with the author of passage A's belief that "independent research supplements, rather than replaces, the parties' presentation of the evidence" (Passage A, P3, S2).

  4. D
    should be conducted at Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) Would both authors agree that this answer choice is true of the research conducted by judges?

    If this were a single passage, this might have be the correct answer choice. Passage A gives us reason to believe that research can be conducted at the trial level, and passage B gives reason to believe that research should not be done at the appellate level. However, the passages are separate — written by different authors with different opinions, discussing slightly different topics. The author of passage A never mentions appellate courts. We cannot assume that passage A's author would agree with passage B author's opinion that appellate courts should not conduct independent research.

  5. E
    usurps the trial court's Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) Would both authors agree that this answer choice is true of the research conducted by judges?

    The author of passage B would agree with this statement if it said that appellate judges' independent research usurps the trial court's fact-finding function (PB, P3, S2). However, this answer choice does not distinguish between trial judges and appellate judges. Therefore, it applies to all judges — trial court judges included. We don't know whether the author of passage B would agree that trial court judges' independent research would usurp the trial court's fact-finding function. And the author of passage A would disagree with this statement. That author believes that the integrity of the court's fact-finding function would not be damaged by allowing trial judges to engage in some research.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion