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
17.
The author's characterization of traditional █████ ████████ ██ ███ █████ █████████ ██ ████████ ██
Question Type
Purpose of paragraph
Structure
The author brings up traditional legal research to give context for the rest of the passage. The rest of the passage focuses on techniques that use social science tools to analyze court opinions. These are different from traditional legal research, which doesn’t apply social science tools.
a
provide background information ███ ███ ██████████ ██████████
This is the best answer. The author brings up traditional legal research to give context for the rest of the passage. Traditional legal research doesn’t use social science tools for analysis. In contrast, the techniques discussed in the rest of the passage use social science tools. The author is trying to help us understand how the techniques discussed in the rest of the passage are different from traditional research.
b
summarize an opponent's ████████
If you consider Zirkel and Schoenfeld the opponents, the discussion of traditional legal research doesn’t summarize their position. Their position involves support for “outcomes analysis.” If you don’t consider Zirkel and Schoenfeld the opponents, then there are no opponents.
c
argue against the ███ ██ ██████ ███████ █████ ██ ███ ████████ ██ ███ ██████████████ █████
The author supports the use of social science tools to analyze sex discrimination cases. She takes issue with one particular technique, but finds other techniques that use social science tools more useful.
The author doesn’t suggest that legal researchers harm plaintiffs. Traditional legal research might not be as helpful as it could be, but that doesn’t imply it harms plaintiffs.
The purpose of discussing traditional legal research isn’t to encourage traditional legal researchers to use social science tools or to make them more comfortable with it. We have no evidence the author wants to encourage traditional legal researchers to incorporate social science tools. Even if the author finds social science analysis useful to plaintiffs, this doesn’t imply the author wants traditional legal researchers to change their own approaches.
Difficulty
87% 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%133
144
75%156
Analysis
Purpose of paragraph
Structure
Critique or debate
Law
Problem-analysis
Answer Popularity
PopularityAvg. score
a
87%
168
b
3%
162
c
1%
149
d
2%
163
e
6%
163
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.