LSAT Forum
2 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- ohthatpatrick
-
Thanks Received: 3808
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: April 01st, 2011
- This post thanked 2 times.
Re: Q27
We try to answer questions in our own words (or in the passage's words) before we look at answer choices, so for this question I would be thinking ....
PSG A: basically was like, "hey, there might be good reason to do independent research some time. We shouldn't have an absolute prohibition on the practice." (line 10-11)
PSG B: "I'm not gonna comment on whether trial courts should / shouldn't do independent research, but appellate courts definitely should not." (line 30-32)
(A) "resigned acceptance" doesn't sound right to me. This tone indicates that "I don't like something, but I guess I'm forced to live with it". That's a poor match for psg A.
(B) "cautious ambivalence" is a little too wishy-washy for me, but I'd consider it, since psg A is definitely giving the sense of "sometimes independent research is good, sometimes it's bad". But we can easily throw out "neutrality" for psg B, which clearly took a position.
(C) Not great but maybe for the 1st half, definitely not for the 2nd. Antipathy means 'dislike', so that part is okay. But it wasn't veiled, hidden dislike. The author opens opposed independent research in appelate courts.
(D) The 1st half is perfect. Qualified approval is the idea "I approve, although only in this set of cases ... or ... I approve, although only with these concerns/reservations"
The 2nd half seems dead wrong. "Noncommitment"? The author was explicitly committing to "appellate courts shouldn't do it". But the author did explicitly not commit to whether or not trial courts should do it. Did this question stem differentiate?
[looks back at question stem]
Oh, SNAP! I didn't even catch that on my first read of the question stem. I thought it was just asking about independent research by judges in general, so I was considering psg B's feelings on appellate courts to be relevant.
Now that we see the question stem was only asking about "trial judges", (D) looks good.
(E) The 1st half is enough to kill it without reading further. It was tentative (qualified) approval, not forceful approval.
I would revisit how I had evaluated the other answers, now knowing that I should only be looking for psg B's noncommittal stance on TRIAL judges. (B) is worth considering again (even if 'strict' is a little harsh), but I would definitely pick the 1st half of (D) over the 1st half of (B), since the ambivalence is really like "I can't make up my mind" and psg A was resolutely saying "we shouldn't completely abolish the practice".
=======
I chose to leave my confused path to the correct answer, rather than pretend I expertly diagnosed what was going on from the get-go.
I think by saying "trial judges" vs. "trial COURTS", LSAT was able to slip this subtlety past many of us on a first read.
(D) is supported by line 10-11 and by line 30.
Hope this helps.
PSG A: basically was like, "hey, there might be good reason to do independent research some time. We shouldn't have an absolute prohibition on the practice." (line 10-11)
PSG B: "I'm not gonna comment on whether trial courts should / shouldn't do independent research, but appellate courts definitely should not." (line 30-32)
(A) "resigned acceptance" doesn't sound right to me. This tone indicates that "I don't like something, but I guess I'm forced to live with it". That's a poor match for psg A.
(B) "cautious ambivalence" is a little too wishy-washy for me, but I'd consider it, since psg A is definitely giving the sense of "sometimes independent research is good, sometimes it's bad". But we can easily throw out "neutrality" for psg B, which clearly took a position.
(C) Not great but maybe for the 1st half, definitely not for the 2nd. Antipathy means 'dislike', so that part is okay. But it wasn't veiled, hidden dislike. The author opens opposed independent research in appelate courts.
(D) The 1st half is perfect. Qualified approval is the idea "I approve, although only in this set of cases ... or ... I approve, although only with these concerns/reservations"
The 2nd half seems dead wrong. "Noncommitment"? The author was explicitly committing to "appellate courts shouldn't do it". But the author did explicitly not commit to whether or not trial courts should do it. Did this question stem differentiate?
[looks back at question stem]
Oh, SNAP! I didn't even catch that on my first read of the question stem. I thought it was just asking about independent research by judges in general, so I was considering psg B's feelings on appellate courts to be relevant.
Now that we see the question stem was only asking about "trial judges", (D) looks good.
(E) The 1st half is enough to kill it without reading further. It was tentative (qualified) approval, not forceful approval.
I would revisit how I had evaluated the other answers, now knowing that I should only be looking for psg B's noncommittal stance on TRIAL judges. (B) is worth considering again (even if 'strict' is a little harsh), but I would definitely pick the 1st half of (D) over the 1st half of (B), since the ambivalence is really like "I can't make up my mind" and psg A was resolutely saying "we shouldn't completely abolish the practice".
=======
I chose to leave my confused path to the correct answer, rather than pretend I expertly diagnosed what was going on from the get-go.
I think by saying "trial judges" vs. "trial COURTS", LSAT was able to slip this subtlety past many of us on a first read.
(D) is supported by line 10-11 and by line 30.
Hope this helps.
2 posts Page 1 of 1