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
26.
It can be inferred, based ██ █████ ███████ ████ ███ ████████████ ███████ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ █████ ██ █████████ ██ ████ █████████ ██ ███ ████████████ ███████ ███████ █ ███ ███████ ██ █████████████
Question Type
Main point
Split Approach: After passage A, eliminate any answer choices whose first title doesn’t seem analogous to what passage A is about. (Passage A says that it’s sometimes okay for trial judges to conduct independent research.) Then, after passage B, choose the remaining answer choice whose second title seems analogous to what passage B is about. (Passage B says that appellate judges should never conduct independent research.)
Sequential Approach: Passage A is about how it’s sometimes okay for trial judges to conduct independent research, while passage B is about how appellate judges should never conduct independent research. So the relationship between the two passages is that one recommends allowing something for one subset of people, while passage B recommends forbidding something for another subset of people. We’re looking for a set of titles that suggests the same relationship.
a
"Negative Effects of ████ ████████████
██████████ ███████ ██ ████ ██ ███ █████
The first title is about the negative effects of something, and the second title is about how much of that thing will trigger those negative effects. This isn’t a match for passage A or passage B. The point of passage A isn’t that independent research has negative effects; it’s that independent research is sometimes okay for trial judges. And passage B isn’t about the point at which independent research becomes bad; it’s about how appellate judges should simply outright avoid it.
The first title says that something can be okay for one subset of people, while that same thing should be avoided by another subset. This is a match for passage A and passage B. Passage A is about how independent research can be okay for trial judges, while passage B is about how independent research should be avoided by appellate judges.
The first title is about countering a position held by others (salt’s not actually dangerous), and the second title calls the first title into question (we don’t know if salt is dangerous). The first title is an okay match for passage A, which counters the position that trial judges should never conduct independent research. But the second title isn’t a match for passage B. The author of passage B doesn’t say we’re not sure whether trial judges should do independent research; he says appellate judges definitely shouldn’t do such research.
d
"Substitutes for Dietary █████
█████ ███████████ ████ █████ █████
The first title is simply about the existence of something (salt substitutes), and the second title is about how some people criticize that thing. This isn’t a match for passage A or passage B. Passage A isn’t just about the existence of independent research; it’s a recommendation that it’s sometimes okay for trial judges to do such research. And passage B isn’t just about how there are criticisms of independent research; it’s a direct recommendation to not allow such research by appellate judges.
e
"The Health Effects ██ ████ ████████████
█████ ██████████ ██ █ ██████ ███████████
The first title is about the effects of something, and the second is a study of a sample population that gets too little of that thing. This isn’t a match for passage A or passage B. Passage A isn’t just about the effects of independent research; it’s an argument for why such research is sometimes okay for trial judges. And passage B isn’t a study of a sample population of judges who don’t do enough independent research; it’s an argument for why certain judges should avoid independent research altogether.
Difficulty
79% of people who answer get this correct
This is a moderately difficult question.
It is significantly easier than other questions in this passage.
CURVE
Score of students with a 50% chance of getting this right
25%142
151
75%160
Analysis
Main point
Comparative
Law
Answer Popularity
PopularityAvg. score
a
3%
154
b
79%
164
c
9%
157
d
7%
159
e
3%
157
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.