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

The stances of the 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

Review the main point, and use notes or highlighted/underlined text in the passage to recall the authors' attitudes, and find the answer that best reflects your understanding of the main points/authors' attitudes

Answer Anticipation

For Author's Attitude questions, the answer choices tend to fall into one of two categories: two-word answer choices or opinion + detail answer choices. The former generally capture only the direction (positive/negative/neutral) and strength of the author's opinion. The latter generally capture the direction and strength in one word, then fills in some details in the passage. This one falls into the former camp.In this case, we should consider what the authors say about trial judges conducting independent research before we go to the answer choices. The author of passage A attacks the notion that trial judges should never conduct independent research, but we must consider the logical force of the argument. Note that the author says there shouldn't be an "absolute prohibition" of independent research (PA, P2, S1). That just means the author thinks independent research could be permissible on the trial level. The author seems to believe that it is acceptable in certain situations — specifically in the context of scientific evidence — but never says that independent research should be done in every context. Thus, we should be wary of answer choices that are too strong in regard to the author's stance.When analyzing passage B, remember that the question is specifically referring to trial judges, not appellate judges. The author never takes a stance on whether trial judges should conduct independent research. Note that the author says, "Regardless of what trial courts may do" (PB, P1, S1) — the author of passage B doesn't take a stance one way or the other. So expect a neutral answer choice in reference to passage B.

Answer choices

  1. A
    resigned acceptance and implicit Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    (A) Does this answer choice accurately describe each author's attitude toward the independent research of trial judges?

    The author of passage A argues for the use of independent research in certain contexts. "Resigned acceptance" implies that the author did not want to accept the argument but accepts it anyway, which is not what happened. For an author's acceptance to be "resigned," the author would have to express a lot of ambivalence or acknowledge many flaws in their argument. Nothing in passage A suggests that the author did not want to accept the conclusion.

    Additionally, passage B does not suggest any implicit disapproval. The author just fails to give an opinion on the matter.

  2. B
    cautious ambivalence and strict Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) Does this answer choice accurately describe each author's attitude toward the independent research of trial judges?

    "Strict neutrality" does a good job of describing the author of passage B's attitude toward independent research. The author of passage A, however, is advocating for the use of independent research, at least in some contexts. "Ambivalence," therefore, does not properly describe the author's stance as it implies that the author is unsure about the matter.

  3. C
    reasoned skepticism and veiled Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) Does this answer choice accurately describe each author's attitude toward the independent research of trial judges?

    The author of passage A supports the independent research. This answer choice would make one believe that the author's attitude is negative. The author of passage B expresses no strong opinion either explicitly or implicitly, so "veiled antipathy" also doesn't match up.

  4. D
    qualified approval and explicit Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D matches the stem

    (D) Does this answer choice accurately describe each author's attitude toward the independent research of trial judges?

    This matches our prediction. In passage A, the author argued in support of independent research, but not necessarily in every context. Most of the author's argument applies to specialized scientific evidence only. Therefore, it is fair to say that the author's approval is qualified in that it applies to just some contexts.

    The author of passage B immediately comes out and says "regardless of what the trial courts may do," indicating that trial courts are beyond the purview of the author's argument. Since the author never goes on to give an opinion on the matter, this constitutes explicit noncommittal.

  5. E
    forceful advocacy and tentative Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) Does this answer choice accurately describe each author's attitude toward the independent research of trial judges?

    This answer choice is for those who didn't notice that this question asked about "trial judges," since it apparently matches passage A's pro-trial-judge position and passage B's anti-appellate-judge position. But, since passage B never comments on whether trial judges should conduct independent research, "tentative opposition" does not describe that author's stance.

    Even ignoring that issue, there are other problems. While the author of passage A did advocate for the use of independent research by trial judges, the word "forceful" is too strong given the language used in the passage. The author concedes that the opposition's view "has some merit" and that an absolute prohibition of the research should not exist (P2, S1). Still, the author leaves the door open for exceptions by never explicitly stating when judges ought to conduct their own research.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion