Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Medium

PT116 S4 P1 Q5 Explanation

Defense Lawyers

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

TopicsOrganizationLaw

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Passage

Is it necessary for defense lawyers to believe that the clients they defend are innocent of the charges against them? Some legal scholars hold that lawyers’ sole obligation is to provide the best defense they are capable of, claiming that in democratic societies all people accused of crimes are entitled to the defendants would say if they possessed the proper training or resources with which to represent themselves.

But such a position overlooks the fact that the defense lawyer’s obligation is twofold: to the defendant, certainly, but no less so to the court and, by extension, to society. For this reason, lawyers, great as their obligation to defendants is, should not, as officers of the court, present to the court well be innocent, the lawyer should of course try to prove that the client is innocent.

The lawyer’s obligation to the court and to society also ultimately benefits the defendant, because the “best defense” can only truly be provided by an advocate who, after a careful analysis of the facts, is convinced of the merits of the case. The fact that every client is entitled to a defense instead advocates for the rights of the defendant given the facts of the case.

What this question is testing

Organization

Your task

Pin down exactly what the question asks about the passage — a detail, the author's view, the structure, or the main point — before looking at the choices.

Common trap

Answers that restate a true detail from the passage but don't answer the specific question being asked.

Winning move

Anticipate the answer in your own words from the passage, then find the choice that matches that prediction.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
5.

The relationship of the information contained in the two sentences in the second paragraph to that in the sentence in the first paragraph can

Answer choices

  1. Contradicted: factual / unrelated2% picked this

    no significant relationship because they represent two unrelated

    The first line is a factual statement about someone else's opinion. The second section, though, is definitely an opinion (the author's). And these two snippets are definitely related, since the 2nd one pushes back against the 1st one.

  2. Correct72% picked this

    the author’s opinion opposing another opinion reported by the author in

    Why this is right

    The 2nd highlighted portion is the author's opinion (should / duty). The 1st one is an opinion reported by the author. The second sentence of the passage introduces the point of view of "some legal scholars", and the 1st highlighted portion is saying "they argue". The last thing to validate in this answer choice is that the 2nd highlight opposes the 1st one. Indeed, it does, as the first one was saying that lawyers have no business judging a defendant's guilt/innocence, whereas the second one is saying "when lawyers judge a defendant to be definitely guilty ...".

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

  3. Opposite: supporting3% picked this

    a hypothetical situation supporting a statement reported by the author in

    It's fair to say the 2nd portion includes a hypothetical situation: "When lawyers know with certainty that a defendant is guilty ..." And it's fair to call the 1st portion a statement (belong to some legal scholars) that's reported by the author. But the 2nd portion doesn't support the 1st portion; it goes against it, since it involves lawyers judging whether or not a defendant is guilty.

  4. Opposite: general agreement10% picked this

    agreement in general with the earlier position but disagreement over

    The 2nd portion is not in general agreement with the 1st. The 1st portion was saying that lawyers should never be judging the guilt / innocence of their defendants. The 2nd portion is part of a discussion saying, "Yes, they should. And if they judge the client to be definitely guilty, the lawyer should decline the case or represent the client by arguing for a lenient guilty verdict."

  5. Contradicted: equivalent12% picked this

    essentially equivalent assertions arising from different

    These two portions are definitely not equivalent, since the 1st portion is saying "lawyers shouldn't judge a defendant's guilt / innocence" and the 2nd portion is saying "when a lawyer judges a defendant to be guilty, they shouldn't deny that the defendant is guilty".

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

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

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