Q3

[lynn_LY0918]

How can I approach type of question like this Q3, adding a new paragraph? I already knew that if it asks about the end of the paragraph, I could approach it as Inference Question. Is there a difference? Thanks!

[ohthatpatrick]

Great question. I don't think there really is a difference. Because it's a new paragraph, I suppose we could tolerate a little bit more of a stretch into new territory, but fundamentally the test is still going to have to expect us to go off the passage we've read.

So I would still use Inference-like criteria for getting rid of answers.

i.e. does anything in this answer seem to go way beyond anything the author discussed or AGAINST anything the author seemed to believe?

and Inference-like criteria for picking the right answer

i.e. does anything in this answer reinforce things that were said in the passage

(A) seems relatively safe. The author has already mentioned defense lawyers being honest and selective. I'm not entirely sure I know what substantive accuracy means, but it seems like it's reinforcing the careful analysis of the merits of a case. So all three of those reinforce previously mentioned points. Me likey.

(B) Practice of law remains "morally dubious"? I don't remember the author ever impugning the moral foundations of law.

(C) lines 46-47 seem to contradict this ... the author thinks the defendant always has the right to representation

(D) This sounds more like a new "last sentence" than a new paragraph. But either way, the idea that the defense lawyer has a three-pronged obligation that all plays into "securing acquittal" goes against what the author said before (i.e. sometimes, the right kind of defense should be accepting the client's guilt and trying to optimize the situation in terms of more lenient sentencing)

(E) Whoa. This also sounds new. We were talking about the ethical/professional responsibilities of defense lawyers. Now we're talking about instituting new judicial procedures?

Incidentally, this is actually the only example I can think of in which they ask us to begin a new paragraph. Maybe there's one or two more examples out there, but it's certainly a rare bird. Either way, I think you'd be well served thinking of it as you do the "logically appended to the end of the passage" questions to which you referred.

Good luck!

[joseph.m.kirby]

In regard to eliminating (D):

The "twofold" obligation in the passage refers to the defense lawyer's obligation to (1) the defendant, and (2) the court (and society). The problem with (D) is that it refers to a "threefold" obligation involving (1) the court, (2) society, and (3) the lawyer. Where's the obligation to the defendant? Thus, (D) misses the mark and is wrong.

[SecondWind180]

Me likey.

Took me a sec to figure out what you were saying here. I don't know why, but I burst out laughing when I figured out.

More importantly, I'd like to note that (A) is the only answer that contains "should" which is consistent with the rest of the other six "should" appearances in the passage.

[tchen7292]

Do these types of questions appear anymore? I don't see them on recent tests, but that could just be a failure in my memory.

With a new paragraph, you could justify stating anything that doesn't overtly disagree with the previous paragraphs. You see this in the LSAT reading comp passages themselves, which can have maze like structures; clear-cut science pieces with sudden author's perspectives appearing at the end, or rebuttals pinned to the final sentence.

I do agree with (A), only because it is the only answer that isn't directly contradicted. (D) is close, but "professional worth..securing acquittal" is way out of bounds.