Q24

[LSAT-Chang]

Could someone help me with this Q? I wasn't sure if the author was being critical or respectful or ambivalent... Here are my reasons:

(B) - lines 21-23
(C) - lines 11-13 (The author seems to be giving credit by saying "well yeah it could seem extreme" BUT it was typical of the law of evidence, so not a big deal?)
(E) - because I wasn't able to decide between B and C, I just went with E...

Could someone give me strong evidence as to why we know for sure that the author is being CRITICAL???

[timmydoeslsat]

The lines you cited for support of an ambivalent from the author towards 18th century lawyers are not lines talking about lawyers.

Those lines talk about how prohibitive the law of evidence was during that time. This is not an opinion of those lawyers.

The author was tough on the 18th century lawyers, which you quoted the exact lines where this found. The author talks about how they did not want to reform the system. They had a vested interest in keeping it the way it was.

[LSAT-Chang]

Wow, I can't believe I didn't read the question stem about "eighteeth-century LAWYERS", I thought I was looking at the system during that time. Thanks for letting me know. Line 21-24 clearly gives us the author's viewpoint about these lawyers!

[demetri.blaisdell]

Thanks for clearing that up, timmydoeslsat. Let me know if anybody has any further questions about this.

Demetri

[mxl392]

Why was scornful wrong?

[kfitz]

Scornful was too strong of an answer choice.

RC answer choices tend to stay away from 'extreme' choices & stick to broader, safer correct answers.

Also, think about it this way--- would the test makers want all of the future, would-be lawyers reading a passage that is "scornful" of lawyers (albeit 18th century lawyers)? Probably not. Critical is the safer choice & more consistent with a scholarly approach to lawyers.

[maria487]

The only lines in which lawyers are discussed are 24-26. How do you get from this that the author is critical of lawyers? I understand that he says reform was "frustrated," but other than that are we to apply the author's critical tone toward late 18th century evidence law to lawyers? I chose E because I really don't feel as if the author is expressing much opinion on lawyers themselves, but rather toward law.

[maryadkins]

The lines you mention should be enough to choose critical over ambivalent. "Ambivalent," recall, doesn't mean neutral. It means unsure. The author is quite explicitly critical of lawyers by noting that reformation was frustrated by their vested interests. It is more reasonable to choose "critical" over "not sure how he feels."