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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.