Reading Comprehension

PT150 · S4 · P4 · Q27 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.

27.

The stances of the authors of passage A and passage B, respectively, toward independent research on the part of trial judges are most accurately described as

  1. resigned acceptance and implicit disapproval

    Bad Match for A and B

    Resigned acceptance means, "sigh, fine. I'll accept it, I guess." The author of A wasn't being forced by anyone to tolerate independent research by judges. She was writing this essay, sticking up for its validity. That's more positive and proactive than "resigned acceptance". Passage B is explicitly noncommittal to the subject of trial judges, so we're not allowed to infer any attitude from passage B, even implicit negativity.

    12% picked this

  2. cautious ambivalence and strict neutrality

    Bad Match for A

    Passage B was certainly neutral, so that part's good. But we want a more positive description for A: amenable, sympathetic, agreeable This author is writing this passage in response to people who want to totally prohibit independent research by judges. She is defending the practice, saying it has merits and there are safeguards against its potential drawbacks. Cautious Ambivalence is like, "Ohhhh, boy. I'm not sure about this. I dont know if I'm gonna like this." To be ambivalent (ambi + valence = both charges) is to have both positive and negative feelings in a way that cancels out. You feel unsettled by indecision, because you don't know whether you like it or not.

    6% picked this

  3. reasoned skepticism and veiled antipathy

    Bad Match for A and B

    We want something positive for passage A, and reasoned skepticism is not positive (it's not super negative, but it's definitely not positive). The author of A didn't seem tepid, ambivalent, cautious, skeptical, resigned. She wrote a passage to stick up for the practice of independent research. Passage B is explicitly noncommittal to the subject of trial judges, so we're not allowed to infer any attitude from passage B, even veiled negativity. Antipathy (anti + pathos = bad feeling) means strong dislike. Whenever we run into an ex-boyfriend or girlfriend and we tell them that our new relationship is going well, that disingenuous smile on our ex's face while they're saying, "I'm so happy for you!" is veiled antipathy.

    6% picked this

  4. Correct

    qualified approval and explicit noncommitment

    Why this is right

    Passage B was definitely explicitly noncommittal, because it just quickly opened with, "Regardless of whatever trial courts do, appellate courts ...." (I actually predicted the right words! Didn't expect that) Passage A's portion is a little tougher to love, but we're happy to see that the main noun is approval. Qualified approval means that you approve of something, but with some qualms / exceptions. If I say, "I'm glad Biden got elected, but I don't think he'll do enough to address climate change", that's qualified approval. If I say, "The movie was pretty good. I liked all the parts with the car chases", that's qualified approval. The author's main point sentence (the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph), expresses qualified approval. Qualm / qualification: while these concerns have some merit Approval Some cases of this practice should be tolerated (this practice should not be 100% prohibited)

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

    60% picked this

  5. forceful advocacy and tentative opposition

    Bad Match for A and B

    The easiest way to eliminate is the passage B option. Only two of the five answers showed that passage B had a neutral / noncommittal stance. This answer says that B was "opposing". Additionally, the descriptor forceful advocacy is too strong for passage (A), who says "the concerns about independent research by judges do have some merit".

    17% 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