LSAT Forum
2 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- ohthatpatrick
-
Thanks Received: 3808
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: April 01st, 2011
Re: Q23
My first job would be to revisit that part of psg A and put it into my own words.
It sounds like line 6-9 is saying people are worried that if judges try to do their own science research, they might do a poor job of finding respected sources of information.
So we need to find a part in psg B that also seems to voice the fear that judges might do all their independent research on Wikipedia.
It looks like line 53-54 is talking about sketchy internet research. Lines 38-39 are also kinda in the ballpark, since if experts are smarter than available internet research, that also makes the available internet research seem sketchier.
(A) maybe? for reasons just stated in the previous sentence
(B) this is about cross-examination, not sketchy internet research
(C) this is similar to (B). It's bemoaning that independent research is done away from cross-examination and from the feedback of experts. This isn't close enough to psg A's line 7 remark of "judges might not be able to get good info from their internet research".
(D) Maybe? This is alluding to a judge doing independent research and coming back with sketchy information.
(E) This is just saying that from a legal standpoint, an appellate court shouldn't be adding info from any medium that wasn't part of the original decision.
Circling back to (A) and (D), we're trying to find a better match for "Judges lack wherewithal".
So which of (A) or (D) sounds more like "Judges might not be savvy enough to find reliable info"?
(A) is actually about experts, not judges. We could indirectly infer that "judges, even if they are savvy, might still not have the full picture".
(D) is about judges. The reason psg B is saying that the research results could be questionable is because they were conducted by judges (who might not be savvy enough to find reliable info)
The answer is (D).
Hope this helps.
It sounds like line 6-9 is saying people are worried that if judges try to do their own science research, they might do a poor job of finding respected sources of information.
So we need to find a part in psg B that also seems to voice the fear that judges might do all their independent research on Wikipedia.
It looks like line 53-54 is talking about sketchy internet research. Lines 38-39 are also kinda in the ballpark, since if experts are smarter than available internet research, that also makes the available internet research seem sketchier.
(A) maybe? for reasons just stated in the previous sentence
(B) this is about cross-examination, not sketchy internet research
(C) this is similar to (B). It's bemoaning that independent research is done away from cross-examination and from the feedback of experts. This isn't close enough to psg A's line 7 remark of "judges might not be able to get good info from their internet research".
(D) Maybe? This is alluding to a judge doing independent research and coming back with sketchy information.
(E) This is just saying that from a legal standpoint, an appellate court shouldn't be adding info from any medium that wasn't part of the original decision.
Circling back to (A) and (D), we're trying to find a better match for "Judges lack wherewithal".
So which of (A) or (D) sounds more like "Judges might not be savvy enough to find reliable info"?
(A) is actually about experts, not judges. We could indirectly infer that "judges, even if they are savvy, might still not have the full picture".
(D) is about judges. The reason psg B is saying that the research results could be questionable is because they were conducted by judges (who might not be savvy enough to find reliable info)
The answer is (D).
Hope this helps.
2 posts Page 1 of 1