Q8

[bigtree65]

Hi can someone please explain why A is the correct answer for me please? I chose it because the other ones were all terrible but I dont like how A says that "other lawyers served exclusively in one court or the other", I don't see any evidence for this in the passage, who's to say there is no third court in which any one of these lawyers can serve.

[noah]

The answer to this inference question is supported by lines 42-43, where we learn that there was some overlap between the two bars.

What irks me is that unlike how we should approach "some" in Logical Reasoning, here we are to interpret "some" in the everyday manner (like "some but not all"). Perhaps I'm missing a reference somewhere that shows that the overlap is not complete. Speak up if you see it!

(B) is contradicted. Canon lawyers were often encouraged to close ranks and protect each other! (lines 61-64)

(C) is out of scope. We never hear a comparison between English civil lawyers and civil lawyers elsewhere in Europe.

(D) is unsupported. While we hear a bit about the relationship between guilds (and generally, that's in reference to how the guilds were not alike), we never hear about the relationship between the courts.

(E) is wrong because is makes a "fake" comparison between the richness of ecclesiastical and the richness of civil courts.

[al2568]

For answer choice E, the first half is mentioned in lines 51-52.

Is there an equivocation between "medieval church records" and " ecclesiastical courts"?

but what eliminates it, is the comparison to English civil law courts.

This is a question that is clearly supported but I think that 99% of the people will get this by POE only.

[ohthatpatrick]

Yeah, Noah was accidentally looking at (E) from #7 when he wrote his response.

(E), as you said, is wrong because is makes a "fake" comparison between the richness of ecclesiastical and the richness of civil courts.

And, as you said, the only mention of richness is line 50-52, which discusses "church records" and makes no comparison at all.

[agersh144]

I spent a ton of time during blind review and I just couldn't figure this one out -- how can the LSAT say that "some" means "not all" - that's a textbook mistake on the LSAT is it not? If it's some we just don't know whether it's 1 person or whether its 100% -- "some" is vague so we cannot say "others served exclusively in one court or the other" that's not sufficiently supported by the wording of the text.'

How can they just ignore the methodology they expect students to be cognizant of throughout the test for a critically important answer choice that is the correct answer after all and then expect students to be aware of it and employ that same principle in other sections (i.e. regarding the importance of quantifiers and modality) and expect student to do well if they don't even abide by the same darn basic rules of logic and grammar? This is so frustrating, what a twisted way to torment tired and weary LSAT students!

[noah]

I spent a ton of time during blind review and I just couldn't figure this one out -- how can the LSAT say that "some" means "not all" - that's a textbook mistake on the LSAT is it not? If it's some we just don't know whether it's 1 person or whether its 100% -- "some" is vague so we cannot say "others served exclusively in one court or the other" that's not sufficiently supported by the wording of the text.'

How can they just ignore the methodology they expect students to be cognizant of throughout the test for a critically important answer choice that is the correct answer after all and then expect students to be aware of it and employ that same principle in other sections (i.e. regarding the importance of quantifiers and modality) and expect student to do well if they don't even abide by the same darn basic rules of logic and grammar? This is so frustrating, what a twisted way to torment tired and weary LSAT students!

I feel your pain on this one! I think the fact that there were "counterparts" in the courts gives this answer some support, and the author doesn't say that all the personnel overlapped, which he or she would most likely do if that were the case. In essence, why would anyone compare the two groups of lawyers if they were not distinct groups.

I'm not crazy about defending this answer, but that's what us civil lawyers must do.

[nja21]

I think you are both missing that they also used "some" in the answer choice. So even if some also might mean all, then in answer choice it might also mean all!

[LeonC641]

I would like to share my two cents for those suffering about why the latter part of A being supported.

I eventually came to accept it after reviewing Line 38-43. It's a short argument:

some overlap of lawyers with civil bar and those with church bar.
-----
Thus, church law lawyers do not more likely to lapse than civil law lawyers do.

This is a comparative argument between these two types of lawyers. So If "some" here means "probably all", then the Author cannot logically make a comparative statement in conclusion. In other words, it order to say A is not less than B, A and B must be two different subject. Thus we can infer that A and B completely cannot be completely overlapped.