Reading Comprehension

PT150 · S4 · P4 · Q26 Trial and Appelate Court Research

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

Passage A

Topic

Should judges and courts conduct their own independent scientific research when making decisions?

Framework

Present Debate

Main Point

The two passages debate whether it’s appropriate for judges (especially trial vs. appellate) to do independent research on scientific matters in cases: Passage A argues that trial judges should sometimes do it, while Passage B strongly urges that appellate courts should not. — Most Valuable Sentence(s): **Passage A**: (P2) **Passage B**: (P1)

Passage A: P1 – Concerns About Judges Doing Independent Research

Some trial judges oppose doing their own scientific research because they think it undermines the adversarial system (where each side brings evidence) and because judges might not be very good at research, possibly relying on bad sources.

Passage A: P2 – Why Some Independent Research Is Justified

The author admits there are valid concerns, but says judges shouldn't be completely barred from doing research—especially because the adversarial system doesn't handle complex scientific evidence well and because independent research could lead to better, more accurate decisions.

Passage A: P3 – How Independent Research Can Be Kept in Check

A trial still keeps things under control: research adds to, but doesn't replace, the parties’ evidence, so the debate remains framed by the parties and isn’t totally freeform.

26.

It can be inferred, based on their titles, that the relationship between which one of the following pairs of documents is most analogous to the relationship between passage A and passage B, respectively?

  1. "Negative Effects of Salt Consumption"

    "Unhealthy Amounts of Salt in

    Both Negative

    We were hoping that Passage A's would sound more positive, like the author is defending the potential value of something that other people are trashing. In this answer, both answers seem to be stressing negatives about salt.

    2% picked this

  2. Correct

    "Salt Can Be Beneficial for

    "People with High Blood Pressure

    Why this is right

    This is our best match for "X is okay in some cases" "X is not cool, in this other context" Passage A is saying "independent research by judges can sometimes be beneficial". Passage B is saying "judges on appellate courts should avoid independent research".

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

    83% picked this

  3. "Debunking the Alleged Danger Posed

    "Inconclusive Research Results on the

    Bad Match for B

    The first title is a pretty usable one for Passage A, who is responding to people who think that independent research by judges is a scary thing we should avoid. She argues that we don't have to totally avoid independent research, and in doing so she is debunking some of the opponents' fears. But the title for B has no sense of "we should not do X". It says that there are inconclusive research results, which would leave us without any takeaway. Meanwhile, passage B had a very strong and clear takeaway.

    7% picked this

  4. "Substitutes for Dietary Salt"

    "Salt Substitutes Come Under Fire"

    Bad Match for Both

    The 2nd title here would make some sense for Passage A, since Passage A is responding to people who oppose independent research. It's still not a great match, because it sounds like it's just describing that controversy, rather conveying the author's opinion. A better title for passage A would be, "Salt Substitutes Come Under Excessive Fire". But this answer isn't even offering that for Passage A. Passage B doesn't have anything in it that sounds like it's describing some thing that has become the target of popular criticism. The most charitable read of this answer would be thinking of "Substitutes" as "Independent Research" (and Dietary Salt would be the research presented at the trial). We'd get titles like "Judges' Substituting for Research Presented at Trial" and "Independent Research Comes Under Fire" We'd still say that the title for A conveys too little of the author's main point, and we'd say that the title for B suggests that passage B discusses a recent controversy, whereas it does not. Passage B just offers the author's opinion. It never places this in a broader "fight" that's going on.

    5% picked this

  5. "The Health Effects of Salt

    "Salt Deficiency in a Sample

    Bad Match for Both

    The first title is totally neutral. It isn't saying that Salt Consumption has healthy effects. We could title something, "The Health Effects of Taking Meth" and we wouldn't anticipate hearing good things about meth. Meanwhile, passage A was not neutral. The second title is also neutral. It seems to just be a descriptive article about a population that didn't get enough salt. These titles are supposed to capture the essential relationship between the two passages, and that relationship was that Passage A was defending independent research while Passage B was critiquing independent research.

    3% 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