PT101.S1.P3.Q18 > Analytics

Hide analysis

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.

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.

███ █████████ ██████████ █████ ████ ██████ ████████████ ██ ██████ ███████ █████ ██ █████████ ███ ██████████████ ██████ ███

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

18.

The information in the passage ████████ ████ ██████████ ███ ██████ ███ ██████████████ █████ ███████ ███ ██████████ ████████ ██ ████████ ████████ ███ ████ ██ ███████ ██

Question Type

Analogy (RC)

The author mentions that these plaintiffs believe in their cause and think that they’ll win, despite the evidence that success is unlikely. Let’s look for an answer that involves someone who decides to do something despite knowing that the chances of success by doing that thing are low.

athletes who continue ██ ██████ ████████ ██████████ ███████ █████ █████████ ██ ███████████ ████████ ██████████ ████ █████ ██████████ ███ ████████ ██ ██ █████████

This is the most analogous. The athletes in (A) use the training techniques despite knowing that they’re probably not effective, just as some plaintiffs bring lawsuits despite knowing that the lawsuits likely won’t succeed.

54%

lawyers who handle ████████ ███ █ █████ ██████ ██ ███████ ██ ███ ████ ████ ████ ██████████ ████ ██ ██████████

This isn’t analogous, because the plaintiffs described aren’t bringing many cases. They’re bringing their own cases based on their own legal cause.

12%

candidates for public ██████ ███ ███ ████ ██████████ ██ ██████ █ █████████ █████████ ████ ██ ███████ ██ ████████

This isn’t analogous, because it doesn’t involve knowledge of a low chance of success. You might be tempted by (C) because we’re told the plaintiffs believe in their cause. But we have no reason to think the plaintiffs are more interested in making some point related to their cause than in winning their case.

12%

supporters of a █████ ███ ███████ ███████████ ███████████ ██ ██ ██ ███ ██████ ████ █████ ███████ ██ ██████████ ████ ████ ███ █████ ██████████

This isn’t analogous, because it doesn’t involve knowledge of a low chance of success.

14%

purchasers of a █████████ ██████ ███████ ███ ████████ ███ ████████ █ ████████████ ███████ ███ ██████████ ██ ███████ ██ ██████

Here, the purchasers classify a ticket purchase as a contribution based on the low chance of winning. But this isn’t analogous, because the plaintiffs aren’t classifying their own case in a certain way based on the low chance of success. They’re deciding to pursue the case. (E) would be analogous if it were about the people who purchase a ticket despite knowing the low chance of winning.

PrepTest 101 - Section 1 - Passage 3 - Question 18

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.

Confirm action