Q27

[chlqusghtk]

Hello.

It is not easy to understand the last passage. Could anyone explain its structure and main point, please?

Also, it would be greatly appreciated if you could go over Q.25 and 27.


Thanks!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Correct Answer
(B) undermines the author's argument in the third paragraph that the recommendation would unfairly burden lawyers, since lawyers apparently do the investigating anyways.

Incorrect Answers
(A) is irrelevant. This does not address one of the author's criticisms.
(C) is irrelevant. Strong opposition doesn't actually tell us whether the author's criticisms have any merit. Just because someone doesn't like something doesn't mean that it's bad.
(D) does not undermine the author's criticism of uplift, because the author thinks that the problems with uplift are that it burdens the lawyer and would be beneficial if all classes of society could partake in such agreements.
(E) is irrelevant. Frequency of use does not tell us whether they burden lawyers or unfairly restrict access to uplift agreements to middle income and wealthy individuals.

Hope that helps!

[chlqusghtk]

Thank you so much for your time and wonderful explanation.

I'm still confused about the second paragraph. Would you please check whether I've understood it correctly or not?

So, the second para. is basically saying:
LRCWA recommends uplift fee arrangement only among contingency fee arrangements. It has measures to prevent lawyers from gaining disproportionate payment and plaintiffs from getting eroded compensation: 1)agreed-upon additional percentage and 2)two conditions--using the arrangement only when other means are not available and lawyers' being satisfied even if they don't get paid b/c of their clients financial inability.

Have I understood it correctly?

I feel like I'm still sort of lost because I don't understand why LRCWA would recommend uplift fee arrangement if they want to argue that its use should be avoided as much as possible(line 23-26). If they believe that not only its usage gives poor clients a better chance to afford legal services by allowing them to avoid paying fees when their cases are not successful, but also it ensures plaintiffs' getting just compensation, why would they want to avoid its usage? For me, it seems contradictory. What am I misunderstanding in this?

Also, in line 17, what is "this RESTRICTION" referring to exactly?


In the last para., from line 49 to 60, whose opinion is this? According to your explanation, this para. is talking about the second criticism, but these lines seem like dealing with the intention and/or beneficial aspects of the having contingency-fee arrangements.


I'm having so much trouble with understanding this passage thoroughly. Your help and advice would be greatly appreciated!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Oh so many questions for one passage. Evidently this one is challenging.

Think of the last two points in paragraph 2 as setting up the author's criticism of the recommendation. Notice that those two points play neatly into the author's criticism of the recommendation in the next two paragraphs. So, it's not a contradiction on the part of the author, but a disagreement between the author and those who recommended "uplift" for only some cases.

"this restriction" in line 17 refers to the fact that lawyers can only charge the normal fee plus an agreed upon percentage of the fee.

As for the last paragraph,

In the last para., from line 49 to 60, whose opinion is this? According to your explanation, this para. is talking about the second criticism, but these lines seem like dealing with the intention and/or beneficial aspects of the having contingency-fee arrangements.

They are! And that's why the author thinks that the recommendation has too many restrictions on the use of "uplift." This paragraph is the author's opinion, and the author thinks that "uplift" should not be so restricted.

[zainrizvi]

Lines 45-48 suggest that the recommendation would make certain types of litigation inaccessible to certain groups of people. Why? Because it would be hard to liquidate assets to pay for cost of trial. Doesn't (D) undermine this by suggesting that there really isn't that big of a difference in cost between the two situations? Hence, the poor people aren't really at an advantage.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Doesn't (D) undermine this by suggesting that there really isn't that big of a difference in cost between the two situations? Hence, the poor people aren't really at an advantage.

I see your thought process, but that's not quite exactly right. If there's not a big cost difference, and poor people who qualify for contingency-fee agreements only have to pay if they win, but middle and upper income people (who don't qualify for contingency fee agreements) have to pay regardless, that does seem to be a bit unfair and put give poorer people an advantage over middle and upper income people.

I think the key here is that you have to remember that contingency-fee agreements allow the client to only pay if they prevail in their case.

Does that answer your question?

[timsportschuetz]

I would like to add the following regarding the above explanations of (C):
1) Stating another piece of correlation in support of an argument based on an expected outcome does nothing to strengthen or weaken an argument. This is a common attractive wrong answer choice in the LR sections. Often, an answer will simply state another correlation that either seems to support or weaken a causal conclusion of the argument. This can never have any effect on the original argument.

[cwolfington]

Doesn't (D) undermine this by suggesting that there really isn't that big of a difference in cost between the two situations? Hence, the poor people aren't really at an advantage.

I see your thought process, but that's not quite exactly right. If there's not a big cost difference, and poor people who qualify for contingency-fee agreements only have to pay if they win, but middle and upper income people (who don't qualify for contingency fee agreements) have to pay regardless, that does seem to be a bit unfair and put give poorer people an advantage over middle and upper income people.

I think the key here is that you have to remember that contingency-fee agreements allow the client to only pay if they prevail in their case.

Does that answer your question?

So is D wrong because it doesn't address the fact that the least well-off are able to avoid payments if they lose?

[ohthatpatrick]

I would say that (D) is primarily wrong because it doesn't address any of the author's criticisms.

The author never complained that the total fees in uplift fee arrangements were higher/lower than those in the other arrangements.

So how would (D) go against anything the author cares about?

I would start this problem by finding / reminding myself of the reasons the author criticized the LRCWA's recommendations:
- lawyers would be forced to undergo a grueling process of investigating a complex set of financial variables relating to their client and the case

- making it so that only poor people can do uplift fees is unfair to wealthier people. Yes middle class ppl can technically "afford" to pay a lawyer's fees, were they to liquidate assests, but they probably wouldn't risk spending $50,000 on lawyers fees so they would just not even try to sue. Meanwhile, poor people are allowed to just "give it a shot". Nothing to lose! If they win the trial, they make a bunch of money (and the lawyer gets paid a little extra than she otherwise would). If they lose, they owe nothing. Also, THEIR lawyers are going to be super motivated to work hard because those lawyers only get paid IF they win. The middle class and rich people's lawyers get paid either way, so they care less about doing their best.

(B) goes against that first big criticism.

(D) doesn't go against anything. The uplift fee is why the lawyers get paid slightly more under uplift fee arrangements. We already knew that. This answer is only talking about "successfully litigating cases", i.e. winning them. It's only about how much people pay when they win their case.

The author's criticism was about whether a middle class or rich person would even decide to hire the lawyer in the first place, based on risking losing so much money in lawyers fees if they lose their case.

Hope this helps.

[JosephV]

- lawyers would be forced to undergo a grueling process of investigating a complex set of financial variables relating to their client and the case

(B) goes against that first big criticism.

Would somebody please confirm (or refute) for me that (B) goes against the first big criticism only partially?
(B) refers to cases that might involve complex or protracted litigation, whereas the passage says lawyers would be "forced to investigate not only the legal issues affecting any proposed litigation."

In other words, before lawyers would spend the extra time only on special/unusual (call them whatever you want) cases, whereas after a hypothetical implementation of the uplift fees they would have to screen every potential case.

Thank you.

[ohthatpatrick]

Yes, it only partially goes against it.

It provides some counterpunch to the author's idea that "there will be this new, onerous task of investigating financial circumstances".

(B) is saying, "It ain't that new, and if we were already doing it for all cases that MIGHT be complicated, then it can't be that onerous."

But, yes, the LRCWA's recommendations could certainly force lawyers to do evaluate financial circumstances more often than before.

[CaitlinC257]

This was exactly my reasoning. I felt like B and D were both supported.

Lines 45-48 suggest that the recommendation would make certain types of litigation inaccessible to certain groups of people. Why? Because it would be hard to liquidate assets to pay for cost of trial. Doesn't (D) undermine this by suggesting that there really isn't that big of a difference in cost between the two situations? Hence, the poor people aren't really at an advantage.

[ohthatpatrick]

Let's say that lawyers who win cases under uplift fee arrangements are making on average $50,000 per case, and lawyers who are working without contingency agreements make on average $45,000.

The objection posed was:
"Doesn't this show that the cost of litigation isn't that different for poor people?"

The cost of losing under an uplift fee is $0.
The cost of losing without a contingency agreement is $45,000.

So, no, there is still a huge difference in cost.

The people on the uplift fee are only paying $50,000 if they make $120,000.
They're risk assessment ---
if I win, I net $70,000.
if I lose, I paid $0.

People without the uplift fee have to be willing to risk that $45,000 in order to make any money on a possible legal win.

If I'm poor and I qualify for the uplift arrangement, I have nothing to lose.
If I'm middle class and I don't qualify for the uplift arrangement, I have to figure out whether it's worth risking $45,000 to potentially win my case.

Hence, the poor people are still at a considerable advantage. They're much more likely to litigate since the cost of them losing is nothing.

Hope this helps.