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
16.
Which one of the following ██████████ █████ ██████ ███ ██████████ ███ ██ ████████ ████ ███ ████████
Question Type
Implied
The answer will likely be supported by the author’s statements about Zirkel and Schoenfled in P1.
a
They were the █████ ████████ ██ ███ ██████ ███████ █████ ██ █████████ █████ ██████
We don’t know that they were the “first.”
b
They confined their ███████ ██ ███ ████████ ████████ ██████████
Although we know they supported “outcomes analysis,” we have no basis to believe they “confined” their studies to this technique. They might have used some other techniques, too.
c
They saw no █████ ██ ███ ████████ ████████ ██ ███████████ █████ █████████
“No value” is too extreme. Although we know they criticized traditional legal research, this doesn’t imply they say zero value in it. They might have seen some value, but thought overall traditional research isn’t very useful.
d
They rejected policy █████████ ██ █████ ███ ███████ ██ ██████
Not supported, because we don’t know that they were aware of policy capturing. We have no evidence of their opinion toward policy capturing.
e
They believed that ███ ███████████ █████████ ██ ████████ ████████ █████ ██ ████████ ███ ███████████
Supported, because they are enthusiastic about “outcomes analysis.” If they criticize traditional legal research for focusing on cases that don’t affect real people, but favor “outcomes analysis,” this suggests they believe “outcomes analysis” is relevant to real people bringing lawsuits.
Difficulty
86% 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%132
145
75%157
Analysis
Implied
Critique or debate
Law
Problem-analysis
Answer Popularity
PopularityAvg. score
a
1%
157
b
10%
163
c
2%
161
d
1%
159
e
86%
168
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!
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.