Q23

[legalrabbithole]

Embarrassed to miss a global question but I mistakenly chose (C) because I thought the author was criticizing the LRCWA's recommended uplift fee because it would worsen the situation.

Could someone please explain why C is wrong? I can see how E is the correct answer but I did think the author used strong language to indicate that he/she didn't like the reform. "Critically evaluate" didn't seem to do that justice...

[timmydoeslsat]

Embarrassed to miss a global question but I mistakenly chose (C) because I thought the author was criticizing the LRCWA's recommended uplift fee because it would worsen the situation.

Could someone please explain why C is wrong? I can see how E is the correct answer but I did think the author used strong language to indicate that he/she didn't like the reform. "Critically evaluate" didn't seem to do that justice...

I disagree with your overall view of the author. You are right that the author did not like one aspect of the reform, the fact that it would burden lawyers doing financial backgrounds of potential clients, which could feasibly lead us down a path of only the wealthy receiving services.

Notice the last line of the passage. Such arrangements can be reasonably assumed to increase lawyer's diligence and commitment to their cases. Those are two beneficial aspects to the proposed reform.

[maryadkins]

(C) is tempting, I agree. But it's telling us that the author thinks the proposed reform will make the situation it's supposed to improve. What's the situation it's supposed to improve? Lines 17-20: ensure lawyers don't profit disproportionately and that compensation due to plaintiffs is not eroded. This means the passage would have to suggest that the reform will make lawyers more likely to profit disproportionately and that it will erode compensation due to plaintiffs.

Look carefully over paragraphs 3 and 4. They don't get there.

[legalrabbithole]

Got it, thank you both for addressing my questions!

[vik]

23 C is incorrect because of the word 'improve'. This word implies a contingency fee system exists and is bad, but line 5 says there is no contingency fee system yet, and the recommendations are to introduce one.

23 C would be right if it said 'recommended path would have problems'

[timsportschuetz]

23 C is incorrect because of the word 'improve'. This word implies a contingency fee system exists and is bad, but line 5 says there is no contingency fee system yet, and the recommendations are to introduce one.

23 C would be right if it said 'recommended path would have problems'

@vik: god bless you! I was so confused why (C) was bad since none of the above explanations seemed valid. Then... I read your comment

[steves]

I'm still not sure on this one. (E) is accurate, but (C) still looks better. The author cites a specific recommendation in lines 20-29, and then spend the rest of the passage criticizing how that recommendation will hurt the larger contingency-fee proposal.

[maryadkins]

Being critical of a proposal by pointing out the problems with it is different from saying it will make the situation worse.

But more specifically, note my point above: the intention of the proposal (line 17) (and answer choice (C) focuses on intent) is to prevent lawyers from gaining disproportionately. The author doesn't think that under the proposal, lawyers will benefit even MORE disproportionately. That's what (C) is suggesting.