Reading Comprehension

PT117 · S1 · P1 · Q7 CAW Legal Services Plan

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

The Canadian Auto Workers’ (CAW) Legal Services Plan, designed to give active and retired autoworkers and their families access to totally prepaid or partially reimbursed legal services, has been in operation since late 1985.

Topic

The impact of prepaid legal services plans—specifically the CAW Legal Services Plan—on clients, lawyers, and the legal profession in Canada.

Framework

Challenge Position

Main Point

While prepaid legal services like the CAW plan have become popular and offer reduced-cost legal help to members, the author argues that these plans are unlikely to provide long-term satisfaction to clients or substantial profits to law firms, and may even lower the quality of legal services overall. — (Start of paragraph 3 is the "Most Valuable Sentence".)

P1: Introduction to the CAW Legal Services Plan and its Growth

The first paragraph introduces the CAW Legal Services Plan, which allows autoworkers and their families to access prepaid or partially reimbursed legal services through staff or outside lawyers. The idea has caught on, with a significant portion of union members enrolled and even other sectors experimenting with similar plans.

P2: Lawyers’ Concerns and Plan Directors’ Counterarguments

Here we learn that while many plan members are happy with reduced legal costs, many lawyers are worried these plans drive prices down too much. Critics say fees are dropping to unprofitable levels, but plan directors argue that lawyers benefit from increased business and referrals, which supposedly offset discounts.

P3: Author’s Skepticism—Long-Term Issues and Lowered Quality

The author pivots here, expressing skepticism about these plans' benefits. They claim that such plans are mainly helpful for lawyers just starting out—not established ones—and that participating lawyers may be less experienced, potentially providing lower-quality service. Low fees can result in lawyers spending minimal time on cases, ultimately hurting both client satisfaction and law firm profitability.

Which one of the following most accurately represents the primary function of the author's mention of marketing devices (second sentence of the last paragraph)?

Correct
It points to an aspect
Why this is right
This reinforces the "Bookend" ideas, which we love to see on Local Purpose. Before the author says "marketing plans", she says that these legal plans are unlikely to result in long-term client satisfaction or in an increase in profits for law firms. After the author says "marketing plans", she explains how working with these inexperienced lawyers will mean working with lawyers who "tend to have less expertise and to provide less satisfaction to clients". In other words, the fact that these plans will mainly attract inexperienced lawyers means that the quality of legal services provided by these plans will be lower than average (i.e. detrimental to quality).
Skill tested: Local Purpose · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.
44% picked this
It is identified by the
Too Strong
Too Strong: primary ways Wrong Selling Point The author never suggests that plan administrators boast, as one of the primary virtues of these legal plans, that "these will act as marketing devices for inexperienced lawyers!" The administrators think that they're contributing materially to the legal profession primarily by saying, "If you participate in the plan, then sure you'll end up working for less money when you're dealing with plan clients, but they will end up referring you to people not in the plan, so you'll get some full-fee work out of this". In other words, the primary way that plan administrators think that prepaid legal plans will help lawyers is by helping them get more full-fee clients (who aren't in the plan). The administrators never say, "We think this will help the legal profession by platforming inexperienced lawyers". The author brings up that issue as a reason for concern with these plans.
20% picked this
It identifies what the author
Opposite: benefits
The author is talking about "marketing plans" as a bad thing. She thinks that people getting legal services via these plans will primarily be working with less skilled, less experienced lawyers.
19% picked this
It is reported as part
Not Attributed to Lawyers
The author is speaking with her own voice in most of this last paragraph, not attributing arguments to other people. The only moment in the last paragraph where the author attributes an argument to someone else is when she cites an argument that proponents of plan participation make.
8% picked this
It describes one of the
Out of Scope
Out of Scope: explain their advocacy Detail-Sentence Trap This is a great example of a trap answer on Local Purpose that is too focused on the detail sentence itself, rather than connecting it to bigger, broader adjacent ideas. The author never cites "need to market oneself" as one of the chief burdens of inexperienced lawyers. And she never attempts to explain their advocacy of legal plans. The passage never states that inexperienced lawyers advocate these legal plans. The author is definitely suggesting a reason why they might, but the passage has never said they do, so we can't say our author is trying to explain something that was never mentioned.
9% 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