I thought B was a given because it is true in the "real world" and not just in this stimulus which is exactly why I didn't choose it because I thought it was too obvious. How can I differentiate between assumptions I am personally making and assumptions that I am making based on the stimulus?
How do you know when you are encountering a principle/rule in the stimulus? Is it because the stimulus provided sets of facts that don't support each other and then a conclusion?
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.
I hope this helps someone!
45
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!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
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.
78 comments
YAYAYA I got it right:)
Surprisingly got this in 52 seconds … hoping the rest of the lesson is like this lol
I got it right heheh- took me 5 minutes ...
This is a 3 star question? This took me way too long
I thought B was a given because it is true in the "real world" and not just in this stimulus which is exactly why I didn't choose it because I thought it was too obvious. How can I differentiate between assumptions I am personally making and assumptions that I am making based on the stimulus?
bruh why did it take me 5 mins to get this right. im so slow
why am i so dumb choosing E... haha after BR and reviewing more carefully its so obvious it was B
Timing is Getting Way Better. Right Answer No Second Guessing 52 Seconds Under Target Time!
How do you know when you are encountering a principle/rule in the stimulus? Is it because the stimulus provided sets of facts that don't support each other and then a conclusion?
I got it right but I was 55 seconds over again!
This is giving LG
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!