Critique ·Author thinks "outcomes analysis" is misguided
I take it that "outcomes analysis" is Zirkel's social science technique. I predict that the next paragraph will tell us why the author thinks that's misguided.
Ah, this makes sense. The cases are too different: quality of evidence; attitude of judge; types of cases; etc. For "outcome analysis" to be predictively useful, a major assumption is that the cases are relevantly similar.
Researcher reads opinions to figure out which variables the judge thought was important in deciding the case. It then uses statistical methods to figure out the causal impact of those variables.
Researcher reads transcripts to figure out which variables and kinds of evidence contributed to the verdict. Presumably the researchers also use statistical tools to figure out causal impact.
Benefit ·These methods can help parties assess outcome of a potential case
Passage Style
Critique or debate
Problem-analysis
Analysis by Kevin_Lin
18.
The information in the passage ████████ ████ ██████████ ███ ██████ ███ ██████████████ █████ ███████ ███ ██████████ ████████ ██ ████████ ████████ ███ ████ ██ ███████ ██
Question Type
RC analogy
The author mentions that these plaintiffs believe in their cause and think that they’ll win, despite the evidence that success is unlikely. Let’s look for an answer that involves someone who decides to do something despite knowing that the chances of success by doing that thing are low.
This is the most analogous. The athletes in (A) use the training techniques despite knowing that they’re probably not effective, just as some plaintiffs bring lawsuits despite knowing that the lawsuits likely won’t succeed.
This isn’t analogous, because the plaintiffs described aren’t bringing many cases. They’re bringing their own cases based on their own legal cause.
c
candidates for public ██████ ███ ███ ████ ██████████ ██ ██████ █ █████████ █████████ ████ ██ ███████ ██ ████████
This isn’t analogous, because it doesn’t involve knowledge of a low chance of success. You might be tempted by (C) because we’re told the plaintiffs believe in their cause. But we have no reason to think the plaintiffs are more interested in making some point related to their cause than in winning their case.
This isn’t analogous, because it doesn’t involve knowledge of a low chance of success.
e
purchasers of a █████████ ██████ ███████ ███ ████████ ███ ████████ █ ████████████ ███████ ███ ██████████ ██ ███████ ██ ██████
Here, the purchasers classify a ticket purchase as a contribution based on the low chance of winning. But this isn’t analogous, because the plaintiffs aren’t classifying their own case in a certain way based on the low chance of success. They’re deciding to pursue the case. (E) would be analogous if it were about the people who purchase a ticket despite knowing the low chance of winning.
Difficulty
56% of people who answer get this correct
This is a moderately difficult question.
It is similar in difficulty to other questions in this passage.
CURVE
Score of students with a 50% chance of getting this right
25%140
152
75%164
Analysis
RC analogy
RC analogy
Stems asking us to find an analogy to some aspect of the passage. Similar to Parallel Reasoning in LR.
Critique or debate
Critique or debate
Passages that develop multiple perspectives on the central topic
Law
Law
Passages with subject matter centered on law (jurisprudence, courts, legal systems, etc.)
Problem-analysis
Problem-analysis
Passages that present a particular problem and then discuss the implications of that problem. They also often explore one or more solutions to that problem (although they don’t have to).
Answer Popularity
PopularityAvg. score
a
55%
159
b
10%
147
c
13%
154
d
15%
148
e
8%
150
Question history
You don't have any history with this question.. yet!
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.