In recent years, scholars have begun to use social science tools to

Question

In recent years, scholars have begun to use social
science tools to analyze court opinions. These scholars
have justifiably criticized traditional legal research for
its focus on a few cases that may not be representative
 (5)  and its fascination with arcane matters that do not
affect real people with real legal problems. Zirkel and
Schoenfeld, for example, have championed the
application of social science tools to the analysis of
case law surrounding discrimination against women in
 (10)  higher education employment. Their studies have
demonstrated how these social science tools may be
used to serve the interests of scholars, lawyers, and
prospective plaintiffs as well. However, their
enthusiasm for the “outcomes analysis” technique
 (15)  seems misguided.

Of fundamental concern is the outcomes analysts’
assumption that simply counting the number of
successful and unsuccessful plaintiffs will be useful to
prospective plaintiffs. Although the odds are clearly
 (20)  against the plaintiff in sex discrimination cases,
plaintiffs who believe that their cause is just and that
they will prevail are not swayed by such evidence. In
addition, because lawsuits are so different in the details
of the case, in the quality of the evidence the plaintiff
 (25)  presents, and in the attitude of the judge toward
academic plaintiffs, giving prospective plaintiffs
statistics about overall outcomes without analyzing the
reason for these outcomes is of marginal assistance.
Outcomes analysis, for example, ignores the fact that in
 (30)  certain academic sex discrimination cases—those
involving serious procedural violations or
incriminating evidence in the form of written
admissions of discriminatory practices—plaintiffs are
much more likely to prevail.

(35)  Two different approaches offer more useful
applications of social science tools in analyzing sex
discrimination cases. One is a process called “policy
capturing,” in which the researcher reads each opinion;
identifies variables discussed in the opinion, such as
 (40)  the regularity of employer evaluations of the plaintiff’s
performance, training of evaluators, and the kind of
evaluation instrument used; and then uses multivariate
analysis to determine whether these variables predict
the outcome of the lawsuit. The advantage of policy
 (45)  capturing research is that it attempts to explain the
reason for the outcome, rather than simply reporting
the outcome, and identifies factors that contribute to a
plaintiff’s success or failure. Taking a slightly different
approach, other scholars have adopted a technique that
 (50)  requires reading complete transcripts of all sex
discrimination cases litigated during a certain time
period to identify variables such as the nature of the
allegedly illegal conduct, the consequences for
employers, and the nature of the remedy, as well as the
 (55)  factors that contributed to the verdict and the kind of
evidence necessary for the plaintiff to prevail. While
the findings of these studies are limited to the period
covered, they assist potential plaintiffs and defendants
in assessing their cases.    1 
 1. Which one of the following best expresses the main idea of the passage?

(A) The analysis of a limited number of atypical discrimination suits is of little value to potential plaintiffs.
(B) When the number of factors analyzed in a sex discrimination suit is increased, the validity of the conclusions drawn becomes suspect.
(C) Scholars who are critical of traditional legal research frequently offer alternative approaches that are also seriously flawed.
(D) Outcomes analysis has less predictive value in sex discrimination cases than do certain other social science techniques.
(E) Given adequate information, it is possible to predict with considerable certainty whether a plaintiff will be successful in a discrimination suit.

2 
 2. It can be inferred from the author’s discussion of traditional legal research that the author is

(A) frustrated because traditional legal research has not achieved its full potential
(B) critical because traditional legal research has little relevance to those actually involved in cases
(C) appreciative of the role traditional legal research played in developing later, more efficient approaches
(D) derisive because traditional legal research has outlasted its previously significant role
(E) grateful for the ability of traditional legal research to develop unique types of evidence

3 
 3. Which one of the following statements about Zirkel and Schoenfeld can be inferred from the passage?

(A) They were the first scholars to use social science tools in analyzing legal cases.
(B) They confined their studies to the outcomes analysis technique.
(C) They saw no value in the analysis provided by traditional legal research.
(D) They rejected policy capturing as being too limited in scope.
(E) They believed that the information generated by outcomes analysis would be relevant for plaintiffs.

4 
 4. The author’s characterization of traditional legal research in the first paragraph is intended to

(A) provide background information for the subsequent discussion
(B) summarize an opponent’s position
(C) argue against the use of social science tools in the analysis of sex discrimination cases
(D) emphasize the fact that legal researchers act to the detriment of potential plaintiffs
(E) reconcile traditional legal researchers to the use of social science tools

5 
 5. The information in the passage suggests that plaintiffs who pursue sex discrimination cases despite the statistics provided by outcomes analysis can best be likened to

(A) athletes who continue to employ training techniques despite their knowledge of statistical evidence indicating that these techniques are unlikely to be effective
(B) lawyers who handle lawsuits for a large number of clients in the hope that some percentage will be successful
(C) candidates for public office who are more interested in making a political statement than in winning an election
(D) supporters of a cause who recruit individuals sympathetic to it in the belief that large numbers of supporters will lend the cause legitimacy
(D) purchasers of a charity’s raffle tickets who consider the purchase a contribution because the likelihood of winning is remote

6 
 6. The policy-capturing approach differs from the approach described in lines 48–59 in that the latter approach

(A) makes use of detailed information on a greater number of cases
(B) focuses more directly on issues of concern to litigants
(C) analyzes information that is more recent and therefore reflects current trends
(D) allows assessment of aspects of a case that are not specifically mentioned in a judge’s opinion
(E) eliminates any distortion due to personal bias on the part of the researcher

7 
 7. Which one of the following best describes the organization of the passage?

(A) A technique is introduced, its shortcomings are summarized, and alternatives are described.
(B) A debate is introduced, evidence is presented, and a compromise is reached.
(C) A theory is presented, clarification is provided, and a plan of further evaluation is suggested.
(D) Standards are established, hypothetical examples are analyzed, and the criteria are amended.
(E) A position is challenged, its shortcomings are categorized, and the challenge is revised.

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Explanation

6. The policy-capturing approach differs from the approach described in lines 48–59 in that the latter approach

Difficulty Level:   750

Explanation

How are the two approaches mentioned in the  final Paragraph  different from one another? The  “policy capturing”  approach centers around the written opinion of the case, whereas the other approach involves reading full transcripts of the case. This points directly to  (D) : Unlike  “policy capturing,”  the other method allows evaluation of aspects of the case not included in the judge’s opinion.

(A)  It’s hard to infer with any certainty the relative number of cases that would be covered under the two methods; if anything, we might think that the full transcript method would involve fewer cases due to its limited time frame. This method involves analyzing all cases  “during a certain time period,”  but we don’t know the length of that period, so there’s really no way to make an accurate judgment here.

(B)  It seems as if all of the issues explored in both methods might be of some concern to litigants. In any case, there’s no way for us to tell for sure from the information given which method would deal with issues more interesting to litigants.

(C)  is a distortion of the  “limited time frame”  issue. True, the full transcript method is limited to a particular time period, but nothing allows us to infer that this time frame is current. For all we know, the cases analyzed with the  “policy capturing”  method are more recent.

(E)  Researcher bias is outside the scope of both methods here.

Answer: D

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Explanation

5. The information in the passage suggests that plaintiffs who pursue sex discrimination cases despite the statistics provided by outcomes analysis can best be likened to

Difficulty Level:   700

Explanation

We’re asked to find a situation that exemplifies the attitude of plaintiffs who pursue sex discrimination cases despite the statistics provided by outcomes analysis. Where are we likely to find the relevant text to brush up on this notion?  paragraph 1  only mentions outcomes analysis at the very end, and  paragraph 3  doesn’t mention it at all. Hopefully your first instinct was to head to  paragraph 2 , and there we find the key sentence in  lines 19-22 : Although the odds look bleak for plaintiffs in sex discrimination cases (as indicated by the raw stats of outcomes analysis), those  “who believe that their cause is just and that they will prevail are not swayed by such evidence.”  We can paraphrase this down to  “it may look bad, but my case is special so I’m going ahead with it anyway.”  We’re therefore looking for a person or group who tries, in the same way as these plaintiffs, to override the odds.  (A)  is the choice that best exemplifies this  “to hell with what the stats say, I’m doing it anyway”  mentality.

(B)  It’s all a numbers game, according to the lawyers in  (B) . These lawyers are playing the odds, not going against them.

(C)  deals with a person’s interests and has nothing to do with any reaction to statistical evidence, as does the example in the passage that we’re trying to exemplify.

(D)  The supporters here try to use their beliefs about numbers (the more, the better) to their advantage. Not the same.

(E)  The decision to purchase the raffle ticket in the first place, knowing that the odds of winning are remote, is closer to the situation of the plaintiffs cited, but how the ticket buyers rationalize their decision is a whole different ball of wax.

Answer: A

Explanation Credit: Kaplan LSAT

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Explanation

3. Which one of the following statements about Zirkel and Schoenfeld can be inferred from the passage?

Difficulty Level:   600

Explanation

It may be an Inference question, but we know right where to look: Zirkel and Schoenfeld are only mentioned once, and it’s right in the beginning of the first paragraph. We know point blank what they think: Like the author, they’re in favor of using social science tools to analyze sex discrimination cases. Unlike the author, they’re enthusiastic about outcomes analysis. It’s hard to form a pre-phrase from this alone, but since this is all we know about these two, surely this will be enough. So with their position in mind, the best bet is to simply test out each choice.

(A)  and  (B)  both distort information in the passage. Must Zirkel and Schoenfeld have been the first to use such tools in this way, as  (A)  asserts? No; just because they’re in favor of it doesn’t mean they were the originators. Similarly, must outcomes analysis be the only techniques they’ve studied, choice  (B) ? Again, no. Just because they’ve studied this technique doesn’t mean they haven’t studied others as well.

(C)  is too extreme. Sure, Zirkel and Schoenfeld criticize traditional legal research and prefer the use of social science tools to analyze court cases involving sex discrimination. But that’s not to say, as  (C)  does, that it’s good for nothing. We can’t infer they saw  “no value”  in traditional legal research from the fact that they saw some weaknesses in that process and preferred another to it.

(D) “Policy capturing”  appears long after our last sighting of Zirkel and Schoenfeld. We have no way of knowing what, if any, opinion they have on this approach.

(E)  Zirkel and Schoenfeld are enthusiastic about outcomes analysis, and they feel that their studies demonstrate that plaintiffs would benefit from the use of social science analysis. The author challenges their enthusiasm mostly by proposing reasons why this technique is not of much value to plaintiffs. It all adds up to the reasonable inference in  (E) —Zirkel and Schoenfeld must believe that the outcomes analysis information would be useful to plaintiffs.

Answer: E

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Explanation

2. It can be inferred from the author’s discussion of traditional legal research that the author is

Difficulty Level:   550-600

Explanation

Traditional legal research appears in  line 3.  When the author says that proponents of the use of social science methods for legal analysis have  “justifiably”  criticized the traditional approach, the word  “justifiably”  tells us that the author agrees with such criticisms. Therefore, we can infer that the author himself is critical of such research, and a quick scan of the beginning of each choice brings us to  (B) . But be careful; remember that  “half-right, half-wrong”  choices lurk among the wrong choices in Reading Comp. Does the rest of  choice (B)  pan out? Sure. The author’s reason for agreeing with critics of traditional research—its focus on cases that  “do not affect real people with real legal problems” —is perfectly in line with  (B)’s “has little relevance to those actually involved in cases.”

(A)  and  (D)  both blow the author’s disdain out of proportion;  (A)  by a little, and  (D)  by a lot. Simply saying  “this criticism is justified”  is far from being  “frustrated”  and even further from being  “derisive.”   (D)  can be eliminated on that first word alone. As for  (A) , even though  “frustrated”  doesn’t seem to fit, it may be worth checking out the rest of the choice—and that goes astray, too: The notion of the  “full potential”  of legal research is outside of the scope.

(C)  and  (E)  can both be eliminated on the basis of their first words: All we know is that the author agrees with the scholars’ criticism of traditional legal research; we certainly cannot infer from this that he feels  “appreciative”  or  “grateful”  toward it.

Answer: B

In recent years, scholars have begun to use social science tools to

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Reading Comprehension (RC) Questions

In recent years, scholars have begun to use social science tools to

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards