Self-paced
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
15.
It can be inferred from ███ ████████ ██████████ ██ ███████████ █████ ████████ ████ ███ ██████ ██
a
frustrated because traditional █████ ████████ ███ ███ ████████ ███ ████ █████████
This misdescribes the author’s reason for criticizing traditional legal research. She doesn’t complain that it hasn’t reached its full potential. Rather, she thinks it focuses on cases that aren’t representative and on cases that don’t affect real people.
b
critical because traditional █████ ████████ ███ ██████ █████████ ██ █████ ████████ ████████ ██ █████
This best captures the
c
appreciative of the ████ ███████████ █████ ████████ ██████ ██ ██████████ ██████ ████ █████████ ██████████
This doesn’t capture the author’s negative attitude toward traditional legal research.
d
derisive because traditional █████ ████████ ███ █████████ ███ ██████████ ███████████ ████
This misdescribes the author’s reason for criticizing traditional legal research. She doesn’t complain that it has outlasted its usefulness. Rather, she thinks it focuses on cases that aren’t representative and on cases that don’t affect real people. “Derisive” is also too negative; the author doesn’t ridicule traditional legal research.
e
grateful for the ███████ ██ ███████████ █████ ████████ ██ ███████ ██████ █████ ██ ████████
This doesn’t capture the author’s negative attitude toward traditional legal research.