Support ·Appellate courts don't have important tools for figuring out what's true
Live testimony from experts can help judges understand scientific stuff, and cross-examination of those experts can help discover what's true. Appellate judges don't get these things, since they happen only at the trial level.
Support ·Appellate courts who do research risk reaching bad results; they also shouldn't read stuff that wasn't presented to the trial court
Passage Style
21.
Which one of the following ██████████ █████████ ███ █████████ ██ ████ █████████
Question Type
Implied
Principle or generalization
Split Approach: After passage A, eliminate any principles that aren’t reflected in passage A. Then, after passage B, choose the remaining principle that’s reflected in passage B.
Sequential Approach: Author A argues that trial judges should sometimes be allowed to conduct independent research because (1) the two sides in a court case are biased, (2) admissibility decisions can skew the evidence that can be gotten from expert witnesses, and (3) independent research only supplements, rather than replaces, evidence presented by the opposing parties. Author B argues that appellate judges should never conduct independent research because it inserts new information that wasn’t presented by the opposing parties during a trial. So both authors seem to at least agree that how the opposing parties present evidence is important and shouldn’t be interfered with.
a
It is more ███████████ ███ █████ ██████ ██ ███████ ███████████ ████████ ████ ███ █████████ ██████ ██ ██ ███
Author A has no opinion on how appropriate it is for appellate judges to conduct independent research. She only talks about trial judges.
Author A only recommends allowing independent research as a supplement to the scientific evidence already presented by the opposing parties in a trial. She doesn’t discuss whether independent research should also be used to decide what evidence those parties are allowed to present in the first place.
Author B doesn’t believe appellate judges should conduct independent research at all.
c
Independent research by ██████ ██████ ███ █████████ ████████ █████████ ██ ███ ████████ ███████ ██ █ ██████
This principle underlies part of author A’s argument. She says it’s okay for trial judges to conduct independent research in part because that research doesn’t replace (i.e., supersede) evidence presented by the opposing parties.
This principle also underlies author B’s argument. He says it’s not okay for appellate judges to conduct independent research because judges’ research would supersede evidence that should have been presented by the opposing parties.
Author A only recommends allowing independent research as a supplement to the scientific evidence already presented in a trial. She doesn’t discuss whether judges should also use research when specifically questioning witnesses.
Author B doesn’t believe appellate judges should conduct independent research at all.
e
Both trial and █████████ ██████ ██████ ███████ ████████ █████ ██ █████████ ████████ ████████
Author A has no opinion on how appellate judges should conduct independent research. She only talks about trial judges. She also doesn’t say what sources trial judges should rely on.
Author B doesn’t believe appellate judges should conduct independent research at all.
Difficulty
68% of people who answer get this correct
This is a difficult question.
It is somewhat easier than other questions in this passage.
CURVE
Score of students with a 50% chance of getting this right
25%147
155
75%164
Analysis
Implied
Principle or generalization
Comparative
Law
Answer Popularity
PopularityAvg. score
a
16%
158
b
5%
156
c
68%
164
d
3%
156
e
8%
158
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.