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
14.
Which one of the following ████ █████████ ███ ████ ████ ██ ███ ████████
a
The analysis of █ ███████ ██████ ██ ████████ ██████████████ █████ ██ ██ ██████ █████ ██ █████████ ███████████
This doesn’t capture the author’s criticism of “outcomes analysis” technique or her support for two other approaches. In addition, the author never suggests that “outcomes analysis” involves only a limited number of unusual discrimination suits. Rather, it involves counting the number of successful and unsuccessful plaintiffs.
b
When the number ██ ███████ ████████ ██ █ ███ ██████████████ ████ ██ ██████████ ███ ████████ ██ ███ ███████████ █████ ███████ ████████
This doesn’t capture the author’s criticism of “outcomes analysis” technique or her support for two other approaches. In addition, the author doesn’t suggest that the validity of conclusions becomes more suspect when the number of factors analyzed increases. Rather, the author criticizes “outcomes analysis” because it doesn’t take into account the various factors that may contribute to success or lack of success in discrimination suits.
c
Scholars who are ████████ ██ ███████████ █████ ████████ ██████████ █████ ███████████ ██████████ ████ ███ ████ █████████ ███████
The main point is about what scholars frequently offer. It’s about how a particular approach supported by two scholars isn’t very useful, and that other approaches are more useful. In addition, the author comments only on Zirkel and Schoenfeld; she doesn’t comment on other scholars who offer flawed approaches. So it’s not supported to say scholars who are critical of traditional legal research “frequently offer” flawed approaches.
d
Outcomes analysis has ████ ██████████ █████ ██ ███ ██████████████ █████ ████ ██ ███████ █████ ██████ ███████ ███████████
This best captures the author’s main point, which is that
e
Given adequate information, ██ ██ ████████ ██ ███████ ████ ████████████ █████████ ███████ █ █████████ ████ ██ ██████████ ██ █ ██████████████ █████
This doesn’t capture the author’s criticism of “outcomes analysis” technique or her support for two other approaches. Also, this is too extreme. The author never suggests that we can predict with “certainty” whether a plaintiff will be successful.