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
27.
The stances of the authors ██ ███████ █ ███ ███████ ██ █████████████ ██████ ███████████ ████████ ██ ███ ████ ██ █████ ██████ ███ ████ ██████████ █████████ ██
Question Type
Author’s attitude
Implied
Split Approach: After passage A, eliminate any answer choices that don’t start with author A’s attitude. (Her argument is that independent research by trial judges is sometimes acceptable.) Then, after passage B, choose the remaining answer choice that ends with author B’s attitude. (He doesn’t take a stance on what trial judges should do. He’s just interested in appellate judges.)
Sequential Approach: Author A’s attitude toward independent research by trial judges is on the positive side; she argues that we should sometimes allow such research. Author B’s attitude is summed up at the very start of passage B: he doesn’t take a stance on what trial judges should do.
a
resigned acceptance and ████████ ███████████
Author A isn’t resigned. She pushes back against the position of some trial judges and argues for why we should actually sometimes allow judges to do independent research. Her argument is a counter-position, not an acceptance.
Author B only disapproves of appellate judges doing independent research. He doesn’t take a stance on what trial judges should do.
b
cautious ambivalence and ██████ ██████████
Author A isn’t ambivalent (i.e., on the fence). She has a clear position: it’s sometimes okay for trial judges to do independent research.
Author B isn’t neutral. He has a clear position: it’s never okay for appellate judges to do independent research.
c
reasoned skepticism and ██████ █████████
Author A does express some skepticism, both of the research conducted by trial judges and of the ability of the adversarial system to handle specialized knowledge.
The problem is the description of author B’s attitude. “Veiled antipathy” would mean author B has expresses a strong dislike (antipathy) but tries to veil or hide that dislike. This isn’t author B’s attitude. He argues against independent research by appellate judges, but he doesn’t exhibit any dislike—hidden or otherwise—of either independent research or appellate judges. He just thinks such research is inappropriate for appellate judges, given how appellate courts work.
d
qualified approval and ████████ █████████████
Author A’s attitude is qualified approval. She argues that trial judges should sometimes be allowed to do independent research (hence “approval”), but at the same time, she acknowledges that there are still valid concerns around such research (hence “qualified” approval).
Author B’s attitude is explicit noncommitment. He states explicitly at the start of passage B that he’s not addressing whether trial judges should or shouldn’t do independent research.
e
forceful advocacy and █████████ ██████████
Author A advocates for allowing trial judges to do independent research, but not forcefully. To the contrary, she’s quite conservative in her advocacy.
Author B isn’t tentatively opposed to trial judges doing research; he doesn’t have any stance on the matter.
Difficulty
55% of people who answer get this correct
This is a very 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%152
161
75%170
Analysis
Author’s attitude
Implied
Comparative
Law
Answer Popularity
PopularityAvg. score
a
11%
159
b
7%
157
c
7%
157
d
55%
165
e
19%
160
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.