Reading Comprehension

PT101 · S1 · P3 · Q14 Outcomes Analysis

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension question.

Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one
Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step
81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

In recent years, scholars have begun to use social science tools to analyze court opinions.

Topic

The use of social science tools to analyze court opinions, especially in sex discrimination cases in higher education.

Framework

Challenge Position

Main Point

While it's helpful to apply social science methods to legal case analysis, simply counting legal outcomes (“outcomes analysis”) is not very useful for plaintiffs—better approaches go deeper to analyze the reasons behind verdicts and identify key success factors.

The Most Valuable Sentence appears at the start of the third paragraph:

P1: Social Science Tools in Legal Research—Promise and Critique

Recently, scholars have started using social science methods to study court opinions, criticizing traditional legal research for being too narrow or irrelevant. Some researchers (Zirkel and Schoenfeld) have shown that social science tools can help, but the author feels they go too far in believing that just tracking case outcomes (“outcomes analysis”) is genuinely useful.

P2: Flaws of Outcomes Analysis

The author explains why outcomes analysis (simply counting plaintiff wins and losses) isn’t actually helpful for prospective plaintiffs: people aren’t usually deterred by poor odds alone, and the unique factors of each case matter more than the raw win/loss numbers, which ignore situations where plaintiffs have strong evidence or procedural advantages.

P3: Better Ways to Apply Social Science—Process Analysis

Instead of just outcome counts, the author prefers methods that analyze the reasons behind case outcomes. Two approaches are described: “policy capturing” (identifying and analyzing key variables in opinions that predict outcomes), and a comprehensive review of transcript details to better understand what drives verdicts and what helps plaintiffs win. These methods provide much more practical information for both plaintiffs and defendants.

14.

Which one of the following best expresses the main idea of the passage?

The analysis of a limited
Wrong Emphasis: too narrow
This sounds like the second sentence of the passage, where the author is joining up with recent scholars to say, "The OLD way was kind of lame -- it focused on a few cases that may not be representative". But this passage was centered on telling us about the NEW ways "outcomes analysis, policy capturing, transcript-reading". The fact that this answer choice doesn't mention any of them or mention "social science tools", which is the umbrella term used for all three of them, tells us that this answer has no chance, because it's not even naming the Central Topic of the passage (using social science tools to analyze court opinions).
4% picked this
When the number of factors
Wrong Emphasis: too narrow
This again sounds like an individual sentence in the passage, not like a summary of the Big Idea. Once again, the main character of this passage, (using social science tools to analyze court opinions), is not even mentioned in this answer choice. Similar to (A), this answer choice just says, "THIS sort of thing is not good." But the main point of this passage is, "While outcomes analysis is not great, these other two approaches are pretty encouraging."
2% picked this
Scholars who are critical of
Too Strong: seriously flawed
The idea that scholars critical of traditional legal research frequently offer alternative approaches is itself enough to make us ditch this answer. We have no support for that quantifier. We just know that Zirkel and Schoenfeld have endorsed using social science tools, as an alternative approach to traditional legal research. But the lower-hanging fruit is the idea that the author would say these new approaches are seriously flawed. Our author thought that Z & S were too excited about outcomes analysis, but that's not the same severity as saying "seriously flawed". More importantly, our author seems to be excited by the prospect of two other alternative approaches: policy capturing and transcript-reading. So we wouldn't want a main point that sounds this negative to the New approaches being used in legal research.
13% picked this
Correct
Outcomes analysis has less predictive
Why this is right
This combines our Central Topic (social science techniques) with both of our Frameworks. The Challenge Position vibe is captured by "outcomes analysis has less predictive value", which reinforces the last sentence of the 1st paragraph (our 1st Most Valuable Sentence). The Problem / Solution vibe is captured by "certain other techniques have more predictive value", which reinforces the first sentence of the 3rd paragraph (our 2nd Most Valuable Sentence).
Skill tested: Main Point · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.
75% picked this
Given adequate information, it is
Wrong Emphasis
Wrong Emphasis: too narrow Too Strong: considerable certainty Once again, the main character of this passage, (using social science tools to analyze court opinions), is not even mentioned in this answer choice. Unlike (A) and (B), though, this answer is way too POSITIVE about using social science tools (implicitly, since it never actually mentions them at all). The author thinks that certain new approaches, in some cases, "assist plaintiffs and defendants in assessing their cases", but that's a far cry from "can predict with considerable certainty the outcome".
6% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill

LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free