Q9

[kimnamil14]

I was debating between A and C. I was mainly put off by "should provide" in choice C; I thought that it was too strong and under the time constraint, I just went with A. I would like to confirm if my understanding of why A is inadequate is right. Is it wrong because of "can serve the overall needs...better" and "standard national curriculum"?

Also, any tips on getting the main points of often convoluted and seemingly randomly-cut-and-pasted passages would be greatly appreciated. Thanks a lot!

[cyruswhittaker]

I was initially tempted by A as well.

However, I think A is wrong because it's both too narrow and for the "standard national curriculum" part, which is unsupported. Nowher in the passage does the author advocate a standardized "national" curriculum, though she does mention a "standard part" of curriculum (line 42).

Notice how choice C takes into account the reasons that the author has put forth, from paragraphs two and three, regarding the abilitity to interpret statutes and synthesize legal information. Conversely, notice how choice A doesn't mention these reasons.

In terms of the "should provide" part of choice C, consider lines 1-5 and also lines 53-55 "...making the study..." It is clear that the author is strongly advocating that law schools provide training in statutory law.

One reservation I had about C (and still kinda do) is that it seems that it would be better expressed if it said that law schools should provide "greater emphasis" on statutory law. It seems like in lines 4-5 that the author has already acknowledged that law schools give SOME emphasis to statutory law, so choice C seems a bit weak on this account.

Any thoughts?

[kimnamil14]

Thanks for detailed explanations, Cyrus!

I am no LSAT guru but here's my two cents. I do agree with you that the passage seems to imply that law schools do incorporate little bit (not clearly not enough) of training in statutory law. As you mentioned, lines 4-5 and also lines 7 -8 when it says focus on judicial decisions lead students to think that the practice of law consists *mainly* in analyzing past cases seem to suggest that. Also, in lines 40-41, it says "one possible argument against including training in statutory law as a standard part..." which seems to suggest that the author is for the idea that training in statutory law needs to be included as a standard part of curricula. All these seem to imply that statutory law is touched upon in law schools but not adequately, and certainly it's not part of standard curricula. And clearly, in lines 45, the author says that some law schools do provide "some training in statutes."

But among the five evils, C does seem to embrace the crux of the passage the best.

[aileenann]

I agree with y'all Nice work.

[the_sork]

I only got question 9 wrong in this passage. The right answer is C but I put E. Here's my analysis:

A: The author doesn't advocate the implementation of a national curriculum.

B: The author does not say that the skills acquired when studying statutory law are more important, only that they have been given too little attention. If there was a fifth paragraph this it would nevertheless be reasonable to assume that the author would finish with such a statement.

C: Note that the language is fairly neutral. The author simply says "law schools should provide training in statutory law". The advantage of "synthesis", which is the main point of paragraph 3, is cited as a reason.

D: Although the author never denies that a proficiency in case law is important, this statement is essentially the opposite of what the author is arguing.

E: This is tempting (I answered E) but ultimately wrong because only the first half of the statement is correct. The clause after "therefore" is too strong. The author doesn't go as far as suggesting that the current approach in law schools "fail to impart the skills necessary for the analysis of legal information." Rather he suggests that by focusing more on statutory law, law schools would do a better job at giving their students proper training for the work that awaits them after law school.

[giladedelman]

Excellent explanation! We do have to watch out for answers that get a little too extreme.

Keep 'em coming!

[americano1990]

For anyone who may still be pondering how to choose between A and C, compare those two for a minute.
The biggest factor keeping A from being TCR is the word 'overall.'
See how the answer is phrased in C: "law schools should provide training in satutory law because....two reasons.'
So basically the author is advocating training in statutory law because of two potential benefits he mentions in particular, so its too big of a stretch to argue that he believes such training will result in an OVERALL benefit.
So while taking the test, i would choose C after seeing the word OVERALL in A.
Although factors like 'reservations that natioanlly oriented law schools show' or 'NATIONAL curriculum in stat law' MAY be reasons to eliminate A (i personally dont really see those as being problematic) it is also true that under timed condition you just wont have the time to go back to the passage, find the lines, and prove those two points wrong....
so in conclusion, be wary of terms like OVERALL, NET, ON THE WHOLE, etc. These words are golden.