Can you clarify my confusion please?
I see that C is supported by line 13 that the decisions are not binding and line 39-43 eliminating opporunity to refine law through ongoing development (which is similar to C-not likely to guide resolution of similar future disputes)
But, why is E not the answer? is it the word SHOULD?
the line 10 says GENERALLY open to public. Is the word difference the reason why E is not the correct answer? we cannot assume that Proponents believe court SHOULD have hearings open to public when it's generally done?
Please clarify this for me.
THANK YOU!
LSAT Forum
2 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- ohthatpatrick
-
Thanks Received: 3808
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: April 01st, 2011
Re: Q17
I wholeheartedly agree that (C) is supported by lines 39-43. You can throw in the earlier line reference about binding vs. non-binding decisions, but I don't think it's super relevant to supporting (C).
And, yes, (E) is wrong purely because of the word "should". Whenever you see "should"/"ought", it is called a normative statement, meaning it's expressing what is good, what is right. Above all, it means it is expressing opinion. Beware that LSAT often attaches a normative word onto something that was presented factually, without opinion.
In lines 10-13, we see that public vs. private is one way to distinguish court adjudication from family mediation. But this is just presented as neutral background information. There is no opinion tacked onto it about whether public or private is better.
From reading the question stem, when you saw "proponents of court adjudication would agree with ...", you hopefully consulted your mental map of the passage's structure and thought, "well, I know the window of text for this answer is paragraph 2, because that's where the pro-adjudication point of view was found. "
Knowing paragraph 2 is the window of proof also clues you in that answer choice ideas that come from other parts of the passage are most likely wrong.
Finally, even though "should" is definitely sufficient to tank choice (E), we should also mention how extreme the modifier "always" is. I would be super-dubious of any answer that says something so strong unless I could point to something in the passage that matched that strength.
A) "usually" and "all" are too extreme to be supported
B) "underlying emotional issues" not discussed in Paragraph 2, which is where we find the adjudication proponents' point of view.
D) goes the opposite of what is said in the passage ... mediation presumes roughly equal bargaining power, while courts try to protect the rights of those at a power disadvantage.
And, yes, (E) is wrong purely because of the word "should". Whenever you see "should"/"ought", it is called a normative statement, meaning it's expressing what is good, what is right. Above all, it means it is expressing opinion. Beware that LSAT often attaches a normative word onto something that was presented factually, without opinion.
In lines 10-13, we see that public vs. private is one way to distinguish court adjudication from family mediation. But this is just presented as neutral background information. There is no opinion tacked onto it about whether public or private is better.
From reading the question stem, when you saw "proponents of court adjudication would agree with ...", you hopefully consulted your mental map of the passage's structure and thought, "well, I know the window of text for this answer is paragraph 2, because that's where the pro-adjudication point of view was found. "
Knowing paragraph 2 is the window of proof also clues you in that answer choice ideas that come from other parts of the passage are most likely wrong.
Finally, even though "should" is definitely sufficient to tank choice (E), we should also mention how extreme the modifier "always" is. I would be super-dubious of any answer that says something so strong unless I could point to something in the passage that matched that strength.
A) "usually" and "all" are too extreme to be supported
B) "underlying emotional issues" not discussed in Paragraph 2, which is where we find the adjudication proponents' point of view.
D) goes the opposite of what is said in the passage ... mediation presumes roughly equal bargaining power, while courts try to protect the rights of those at a power disadvantage.
2 posts Page 1 of 1