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
16.
Which one of the following ██████████ █████ ██████ ███ ██████████ ███ ██ ████████ ████ ███ ████████
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