Reading Comprehension

PT101 · S1 · P3 · Q18 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.

18.

The information in the passage suggests that plaintiffs who pursue sex discrimination cases despite the statistics provided by outcomes analysis can best be likened to

  1. Correct

    athletes who continue to employ

    Why this is right

    This wouldn't appeal to me much on a first pass, but it is viable as an answer choice because both these athletes and the sex discrimination plaintiffs are being told they have a low probability of success. In the case of the plaintiffs, the outcomes analysis data is saying, "I know you want to sue your boss, but the data says this only has like a 15% chance of working (of you winning the case)." In the case of these athletes, the statistical evidence is saying, "I know you want these training techniques to make your body better, but the data says this only has like a 15% chance of working (of being effective)."

    Skill tested: Analogy · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

    71% picked this

  2. lawyers who handle lawsuits for

    Bad Match Topic Trap

    Whenever we're doing an Analogy / Parallel task, it's a big red flag when the answer seems to be coming from a very similar world in terms of topic. The plaintiffs are thinking to themselves, "although the data tells me most people fail, given that my cause is just, I will succeed!" This answer is talking about someone thinking to themselves, "although many of my attempts may fail, given that I will have so many attempts, some will succeed!"

    7% picked this

  3. candidates for public office who

    Bad Match

    The people in this answer choice don't expect to win. They just want to run for office anyway to make a statement (like Andrew Yang). The plaintiffs, meanwhile, do expect to win. They believe "their cause is just and that they will prevail".

    8% picked this

  4. supporters of a cause who

    Bad Match

    The plaintiffs weren't recruiting other plaintiffs or other supporters, saying, "Hey, if we get a high number of us all backing one case, then we'll have a better chance of winning".

    9% picked this

  5. purchasers of a charity’s raffle

    Bad Match

    Just like (C), we can eliminate this one because it says these people think the likelihood of winning in remote. Our plaintiffs, meanwhile, believed "that their cause is just and that they will prevail".

    5% 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