Self-study
P1
In recent years, scholars have begun to use social science tools to analyze court opinions. ███
Intro to Topic ·
Social science tools to analyze court opinions
Not sure what this means, but that's fine, will keep reading.
Critique ·
Of traditional legal research
Traditional legal research has problems. Author agrees with this. This is why scholars are using social science techniques.
Example of New Method ·
Zirkel
Use social science techniques to analyze gender discrimination in employment.
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.
P2
██ ███████████ ███████ ██ ███ ████████ █████████ ██████████ ████ ██████ ████████ ███ ██████ ██ ██████████ ███ ████████████ ██████████ ████ ██ ██████ ██ ███████████ ███████████ ███
Questionable Assumption ·
Simply counting success will be helpful
So... simply counting the number of successful v. unsuccessful plaintiffs will not be helpful to prospective plaintiffs. Why?
Reason 1 ·
Prospective plaintiffs don't find this evidence persuasive
Okay...
Reason 2 ·
Details of the cases are too different
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.
P3
███ █████████ ██████████ █████ ████ ██████ ████████████ ██ ██████ ███████ █████ ██ █████████ ███ ██████████████ ██████ ███
Altnerative Methods ·
More useful
Method 1 ·
Reading opinions / policy capturing
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.
Method 2 ·
Reading transcripts
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
18.
The information in the passage ████████ ████ ██████████ ███ ██████ ███ ██████████████ █████ ███████ ███ ██████████ ████████ ██ ████████ ████████ ███ ████ ██ ███████ ██
a
athletes who continue ██ ██████ ████████ ██████████ ███████ █████ █████████ ██ ███████████ ████████ ██████████ ████ █████ ██████████ ███ ████████ ██ ██ █████████
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.
b
lawyers who handle ████████ ███ █ █████ ██████ ██ ███████ ██ ███ ████ ████ ████ ██████████ ████ ██ ██████████
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.
d
supporters of a █████ ███ ███████ ███████████ ███████████ ██ ██ ██ ███ ██████ ████ █████ ███████ ██ ██████████ ████ ████ ███ █████ ██████████
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.