I got this answer correct but I'm still a bit confused on the stimulus.
"Two of the codefendants', however, share the same legal counsel." has nothing really to do with justifying the order being rejected, right? As in, if you completely remove that one sentence, and everything else was kept the same, answer choice B would have still been the correct answer?
I did POE because I couldn't understand how the "facts" and the "rules" connected to one another (unlike like the question we did before this one about the medication).
For whatever reason, I originally read it as the plaintiff requested to question a defendant without the defendant's own legal counsel there for a second, and I was horrifically concerned haha. Glad I reread it and managed to understand it better.
I'm so confused. it says without their CODEFENDANTs counsel present. not their own. it never said they cant have their own present and it only talked about how they won't make them find a new one because of them sharing a counsel so I would only assume it would be against some rule for the counsel to hear both questions. im lost.
Was I wrong to assume the possibility that the defendants could have been questioned at different times? Where was it implied that all defendants were being questioned simultaneously, or is this just the common court process in these circumstances?
B is also the only answer choice that has anything to do with the stimulus. All of the other ones bring in rules that are completely irrelevant to the stim.
In these questions, does 'principle' mean 'rule'? If this is the case, the question gives us a hint that we should be thinking about what rule is missing, rather than what needs to be the case for the rule to apply or not.
So am I correct to assume that with these rule-based questions, the wrong answer choices may largely be attempting to distract by bringing irrelevant issues into the situation?
I got it right by using the process of elimination, all the others seemed more irrelevant. However, going through the comments and looking back at the question I figured out I did not fully understand the stimulus. The stimulus states, that they would like to question each codefendant on their own with their legal council but without the legal council of the other codefendants. Therefore, if two share the same legal council then one would have to go in without legal representation. Then the judge states that they will not make anyone look for a different legal counsel. So, the judge makes the decision to deny the request on the basis of (the most strongly supported answer choice B) which is each person has the right to legal counsel being present when being questioned.
The rule set out by the plaintiff in simple terms would be questioning a defendant without their co-defendant or their co-defendant's counsel being present; in other words just the defendant in question and their lawyer. We also find out that two defendant's share counsel. As it applies to those two, their shared counsel is just as much a given defendant's counsel and simultaneously another defendant's counsel. Which is to say that the rule applies equally in both terms laid out above (also this is a poorly worded question and should be thrown out immediately). With that being said, why would one of those two have to be questioned without their lawyers? Subsequently the assumption being made is that everyone has the right to their attorney at questioning, but according to the plaintiff's rule, the "odd man out" has the right to counsel being present just as much as he is barred.
why is it relevant that 2 of the codefendants share the same legal counsel? given that defendant 1 and 2 share the same legal counsel, why can't the court first question defendant 1 with legal counsel, then defendant 2 with the same legal counsel? this would not violate the rule that answer choice B sets in place.
Need help- was going to pick B- but then I thought the stimulus never says a defendant could not have their own lawyer present. So I thought B was a beautiful trap answer. I went with D as honestly it makes sense. I feel it lines up perfectly! It does line up with the premise as the plaintiff was trying to deny a defendant a right to have their legal counsel present during questioning- because that lawyer happened to represent another defendant in the case. So can someone help break it down for me why it's not D? I see why it is B but there is not sufficient to write off D as it does address the rest of the stimulus.
I got it right but don't understand why it matters that two of the codefendants have the same counsel. Even if they all had separate counsel, wouldn't the rule in answer choice (B) still apply?
I've been flipping through the v2 after getting thru the LR on v1 before June and I love this format so much! I feel like I have to think critically sooner on.
3
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
61 comments
just did this question in the last drill from the section prior
I got this answer correct but I'm still a bit confused on the stimulus.
"Two of the codefendants', however, share the same legal counsel." has nothing really to do with justifying the order being rejected, right? As in, if you completely remove that one sentence, and everything else was kept the same, answer choice B would have still been the correct answer?
I did POE because I couldn't understand how the "facts" and the "rules" connected to one another (unlike like the question we did before this one about the medication).
can someone explain why this isnt a PSA q?
Is it about the strength of the assumption?
took me a while but got it right the first time!!
For whatever reason, I originally read it as the plaintiff requested to question a defendant without the defendant's own legal counsel there for a second, and I was horrifically concerned haha. Glad I reread it and managed to understand it better.
Anytime legal jargon is used im cooked is that a bad sign
I'm so confused. it says without their CODEFENDANTs counsel present. not their own. it never said they cant have their own present and it only talked about how they won't make them find a new one because of them sharing a counsel so I would only assume it would be against some rule for the counsel to hear both questions. im lost.
Was I wrong to assume the possibility that the defendants could have been questioned at different times? Where was it implied that all defendants were being questioned simultaneously, or is this just the common court process in these circumstances?
B is also the only answer choice that has anything to do with the stimulus. All of the other ones bring in rules that are completely irrelevant to the stim.
Gott this one right.
#help
In these questions, does 'principle' mean 'rule'? If this is the case, the question gives us a hint that we should be thinking about what rule is missing, rather than what needs to be the case for the rule to apply or not.
So am I correct to assume that with these rule-based questions, the wrong answer choices may largely be attempting to distract by bringing irrelevant issues into the situation?
I got it right by using the process of elimination, all the others seemed more irrelevant. However, going through the comments and looking back at the question I figured out I did not fully understand the stimulus. The stimulus states, that they would like to question each codefendant on their own with their legal council but without the legal council of the other codefendants. Therefore, if two share the same legal council then one would have to go in without legal representation. Then the judge states that they will not make anyone look for a different legal counsel. So, the judge makes the decision to deny the request on the basis of (the most strongly supported answer choice B) which is each person has the right to legal counsel being present when being questioned.
I hope this helps someone!
Thank you Better Call Saul
what do i do if im getting the right answer...just not in the way that is explained in the video
i picked B because of the real world lol not logic oh well
i mean i got it right... but a minute over the target time.. i'm cooked
The rule set out by the plaintiff in simple terms would be questioning a defendant without their co-defendant or their co-defendant's counsel being present; in other words just the defendant in question and their lawyer. We also find out that two defendant's share counsel. As it applies to those two, their shared counsel is just as much a given defendant's counsel and simultaneously another defendant's counsel. Which is to say that the rule applies equally in both terms laid out above (also this is a poorly worded question and should be thrown out immediately). With that being said, why would one of those two have to be questioned without their lawyers? Subsequently the assumption being made is that everyone has the right to their attorney at questioning, but according to the plaintiff's rule, the "odd man out" has the right to counsel being present just as much as he is barred.
Wtf
My first reaction to seeing the answers is where in the world did they get all of this from
why is it relevant that 2 of the codefendants share the same legal counsel? given that defendant 1 and 2 share the same legal counsel, why can't the court first question defendant 1 with legal counsel, then defendant 2 with the same legal counsel? this would not violate the rule that answer choice B sets in place.
Need help- was going to pick B- but then I thought the stimulus never says a defendant could not have their own lawyer present. So I thought B was a beautiful trap answer. I went with D as honestly it makes sense. I feel it lines up perfectly! It does line up with the premise as the plaintiff was trying to deny a defendant a right to have their legal counsel present during questioning- because that lawyer happened to represent another defendant in the case. So can someone help break it down for me why it's not D? I see why it is B but there is not sufficient to write off D as it does address the rest of the stimulus.
Suits helped me on this one
I got it right but don't understand why it matters that two of the codefendants have the same counsel. Even if they all had separate counsel, wouldn't the rule in answer choice (B) still apply?
I've been flipping through the v2 after getting thru the LR on v1 before June and I love this format so much! I feel like I have to think critically sooner on.