Q9

[jasonleb1]

Can someone explain why E is an inferior answer choice to C? I felt E better took into account the entire passage and its thoughts at the end regarding when stealing thunder may not work. C seemed too narrow to me.

[ohthatpatrick]

Since this is the first post on this question, it's our protocol that I put up a complete explanation, but I'll certainly (hopefully) address your specific concern.

Question Type: Main Point

Main Point = Topic + Purpose

It's clear the topic is "Stealing Thunder", or maybe even "the supposed effectiveness of Stealing Thunder".

What purpose does the author have in discussing this topic? Providing examples? Arguing in favor of it? Against? Presenting a debate concerning its effectiveness? Showing how the move has changed over time?

I try to read for a sentence that sounds like the purest moment of the author revealing her purpose, and/or the best framing statement that gets unpacked for the rest of the passage.

This usually occurs after a "but/yet/however/recently" at the end of the first paragraph.

Here, it's after an "although" as the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph.

Line 11-15 is the author's evaluation of the effectiveness of stealing thunder, based on available research. The rest of the passage unpacks this sentence. The author's evaluation is qualified endorsement, meaning that she thinks stealing thunder IS often effective, although there are exceptions and considerations watering that down a bit.

Let's look for the best match to this sentence.

ANSWERS

(A) CONTRADICTED - "actual trials"? Nope, only simulations.

(B) TOO NARROW - this grabs a specific concern from P3. It doesn't sound like our thesis sentence. The focus of the passage is that stealing thunder works, with a subsidiary point that it can have some limitations / unintended consequences.

(C) Decent, but seems to only mention the positive aspects. I would feel more comfortable with an answer choice if it acknowledged the subsidiary point that stealing thunder can have limitations / backfire.

(D) WRONG EMPHASIS - again, like (B), this puts too much weight on the negative side of things.

(E) This looks more well rounded ... "useful, but with limitations". Only thing sticking out is the strength of "vindicated" and the phrase "research designed to confirm the usefulness".

Down to (C) vs. (E), my concern would be seeing if (E) is too strong. If it is, then I have to live with (C), which DOES convey the main point, even though it doesn't capture the subsidiary one.

If (E)'s strength can be supported, then it seems like a broader answer that wraps its arms around more of the passage.

Looking back at our trusty ol' thesis sentence, line 11-15, a couple things seem awry with (E):

1. Research DESIGNED to confirm the usefulness
vs.
"no empirical research has DIRECTLY tested the effectiveness"

(we could stop right there)

2. Research has VINDICATED the value of the technique
vs.
"studies have SUGGESTED the technique is effective"

The correct answer is (C).

============

Nerd note:
this is a growing trend on recent RC Main Point questions. Historically, correct answers were often written with two clauses.

Although "opposing points have said this", [main clause] "author thinks this".

In writing it this way, the correct answer felt like a summary of the passage while also grammatically putting emphasis on the author's main point.

Recently, correct answers JUST give you the author's main takeaway, without all the nuance and qualifiers you've come to expect. Focus on reasons why answers are WRONG.

It is DEFINITELY common for an incorrect answer choice to be "true, but too narrow", but when it comes down to the last couple, don't force yourself to like the awkward phrasing of the broader answer. Look up any phrasings you're concerned with, because THESE are dealbreakers if they're not supported.

Hope this helps.

[nmalindzak]

I still think E is better.

Lines 16-20 "lawyer's commonly held belief in the value of stealing thunder is not only corroborated (i.e. a synonym for vindicated), it is also supported by several psychological explanations of why the technique should work (i.e. Research designed to confirm its usefulness)"

The only way I can justify E being incorrect, is if you don't take "research" to mean the same thing as "experimental findings" and "psychological explanations".

[andreperez7]

Since this is the first post on this question, it's our protocol that I put up a complete explanation, but I'll certainly (hopefully
Hope this helps.

Just to corroborate, answer A also has the detail creep of "and legal scholars." FYI, there was no mention of legal scholars in the text.

Also, as to why E is wrong: as ohthatpatrick writes, it has (1) a detail creep of "research designed to confirm." There was no such research of such design, just some psychology applied (and that might be debatable). Unless you count those experiments as research...

And 2 a degree problem and detail creep with "vindication": lawyers were not told they were wrong; there was just no evidence before, so it was believed as a sort of "that's likely true" but without anything other than anecdotal evidence and reasoning to back it up. Also, I think this might be a tone problem, but it does sound like proponents of "Stealing Thunder" have long been denied or scoffed at, but that's not the case.

I think the confusion might be over the word "vindicated." It is not the same as corroborated. It has the meaning, according to Merriam Websters, of "justification against denial of censure." Again, the proponents, most lawyers, were not denied that "stealing thunder" works.

I hope this helps someone out there.

[Didius Falco]

Ohthatpatrick and others have offered several important reasons why (E) is incorrect, but I thought I would offer one more framing that I feel adds another nail to its coffin, and that was helpful for me in understanding it.

(E) states that "research designed to confirm [the technique]" has supported the value of stealing thunder, and that this research has identified its "general limitations."

Even if you completely miss the fact that the research experiment related to stealing thunder (the simulated trials) only "suggested" it was effective, you could still notice that this research presented nothing about the limitations of the strategy. All of the information about limitations is derived from psychological analysis and other-topic comparisons which are very clearly not "designed" to address stealing thunder specifically.

In other words, there are at least two sources of evidence in the passage, only one of which could be misconstrued to be described by (E), and (E) has attributed all the findings of the passage to it in a way that is obviously to ambitious.

So even if you didn't return to scan the passage carefully and fell hook line and sinker for for the first half of E (like I did), it should have been possible to eliminate when you realized that the studies about the technique were not the source of the limitations discussed in paragraphs 2 and 3 (this I failed to do as well, alas...).

[851869412]

Two comments on (A).

(1) Even the research is actually conducted in simulated trials, I think it can still demonstrate something in the actual trial because all the research conducted in a simulated circumstance are intended to explain the actual circumstance.

(2) I eliminate (A) because there is no "legal scholars" in the passage. Does this make any sense?

Thanks in advance.

[andrewgong01]

I understand that for "A" the passage said on Lines 10-11 no empirical research has been carried out in ACTUAL trials; rather they are simulations. However, "A" does not commit to saying the tests were done in actual trial; rather A just said the effectiveness in actual trials has been "demonstrated through research". which includes the simulated trial. It was for this reason that I thought A was still valid because the author does agree that the research it presents lends credence to the claim that stealing thunder can be effective. Since this was more complete than "C", the credited response, by including the caveats (limits to the strategy) and knowing the LSAT likes testing exceptions/caveats I thought A was better... I am still not sure what I am missing at how A directly contradicts Lines 11-12 because "A" does not say the studies were carried out in actual trials; it just says the studies (carried out in simulated trials) supports the idea the strategy can work in actual trials..

[christine.defenbaugh]

The word "demonstrated", in (A), really doesn't allow the sort of squishyness that a number of people are giving it.

I cannot demonstrate that something will work in real life simply by doing research in a simulation environment. Research in a simulated environment might suggest that something will work in actual practice, but it cannot demonstrate it.

To demonstrate is to actually show it happening. The definition of the word is "to clearly show the existence or truth of (something) by giving proof or evidence." To do this, the research would have to show it happening in an actual trial.