Q19

[jardinsouslapluie5]

In correct answer (D), am I supposed to assume those aspects are "not mentioned in a judge's opinion" because they discuss variables?
Or do I miss the phrase where says "judge's opinion"...

[ohthatpatrick]

This is a pretty tricky question, because it does presume that a test-taker knows that "reading an opinion" means the judge's opinion and that "an opinion" is different from "a complete transcript" of the case.

When the passage describes "Policy capturing" in lines 37-44, it says that the researcher reads each opinion.

The alternative method, described in 49-56, says that scholars have adopted a technique that requires reading complete transcripts of cases.

So the former method tries to glean all the relevant data from the judge's opinion, while the latter method more exhaustively reads the entire case transcript.

We can support (D) from the two line references I just mentioned.

Hope this helps.

[WaltGrace1983]

I was choosing between (D) and (A), originally chose (D), then switched it to (A). I am a bit confused...

"...determine whether these variables predict the outcome of the the lawsuit...attempts to explain the reason for the outcome...plaintiff's success or failure."

This makes it seem like only one case is being analyzed while, in the other "complete transcripts" model, it seems that multiple cases are analyzed:

"complete transcripts of all sex discrimination cases litigated during a certain time period..."

While I know that it doesn't HAVE TO BE TRUE that there are more cases (maybe only one case was tried in that time period) isn't (A) still a pretty innocuous answer?

[ohthatpatrick]

I see where you're coming from, but I think both methods involve analyzing a large number of cases.

When we see lines 37-38 saying "analyzing sex discrimination cases" / "the researcher reads eachopinion" ... it's implied that a researcher goes through a number of cases and reads each opinion.

The line references you were highlighting indicate the specific process for a given case, but this process is repeated many times.

That whole "multivariate analysis to determine whether these variables predict the outcome" only makes sense in the context of a large number of cases to consider.

It's sort of like people who watch every NBA game in order to track stats ... ultimately, we have a pile of stats and we can see whether there's any correlation between 2nd quarter bench scoring and an eventual win/loss.

When it talks about the reason for THE outcome, we just mean "guilty/innocent" ... so that singular outcome still applies to many, many cases.

The context of that sentence is as a contrast to outcomes analysis. Outcomes analysis simply records THE outcome (of tons of cases), whereas policy-capturing would attempt to describe the causal variables for THE outcome (of tons of cases).

(A) is actually meant as an opposite answer, I think, because the "latter method" being asked about looks at FEWER cases than policy capturing. The latter method is "limited to the period covered" (line 57).

Because the latter method involves reading way MORE than policy capturing (it involves reading the whole case rather than just the judge's opinion), we have more grounds to think that policy capturing would get through more cases.

=== other answers ===

(B) hard to justify "more directly focuses on issues of concern" ... both methods try to figure out the meaningful variables.

(C) no way to support one being more recent / trendy than the other.

(E) extreme ... "eliminates ANY distortion"? where would we support that?

[Andreid861]

This is a pretty tricky question, because it does presume that a test-taker knows that "reading an opinion" means the judge's opinion and that "an opinion" is different from "a complete transcript" of the case.

When the passage describes "Policy capturing" in lines 37-44, it says that the researcher reads each opinion.

The alternative method, described in 49-56, says that scholars have adopted a technique that requires reading complete transcripts of cases.

So the former method tries to glean all the relevant data from the judge's opinion, while the latter method more exhaustively reads the entire case transcript.

We can support (D) from the two line references I just mentioned.

Hope this helps.

But if we assume that transcripts = judge's opinion, is answer D still could be deduced?
I think that "aspects...not...mentioned..." is "the findings" from line 57, that are "limited to the period covered" and so helpful by this period constrain as every period has its own "findings".
Am I right?