Q14

[weiyichen1986]

Hi, i am wondering why answer C is incorrect??

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Good question. The main point question is asking us to identify the authors primary concern in writing the passage. We should ask ourselves, "what did the author want us to know?"

Here the author is a supporter of the use of social science tools to analyze court cases, and though there's an example of one such tool that the author takes the time to discredit, the author also takes the time to point out two other social science tools that seem to provide useful information.

There are two reasons I would eliminate answer choice (C). First, it's more about the scholars Zirkel and Schoenfeld, when the passage is more about successful and unsuccessful social science tools. Second, it doesn't even mention the successful social science tools discussed in the final paragraph. Answer choice (C) is simply too much about the 2nd paragraph and not enough about the passage as a whole.

Answer choice (D) summarizes both the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs as they are outlined in the 1st paragraph initially - social science tools good, though one form of them (Outcomes Analysis)... not so much.

Incorrect Answers

(A) is too narrow. This describes the author's view towards traditional legal research, but fails to even mention the social science tools this passage is about.
(B) is opposed to the author's opinion that would be critical of not looking for enough explanatory factors.
(C) may be true, but fails to mention the author's support for the application of social science tools in legal research.
(E) is too narrow. The passage is about the utility of social science tools in legal research more broadly.

[alex.cheng.2012]

I'd just like to chip in.

I was stuck between C and D. This is why I eliminated C.

I re-read the answers again, starting from C. The keyword that allowed me to cross it off was the term "frequently." From my understanding of the passage, the only scholars we know that are critical of traditional legal research that also offered flawed approaches are F and S. These two scholars don't allow us to make an overarching, general conclusion that scholars who are critical of traditional legal research frequently offer flawed alternative approaches.

The first sentence does allude to other scholars that are critical of traditional legal research, but the only scholars we know to have a flawed approach are Z and S. Perhaps other scholars also use the social science approach discussed by the author in the last paragraph.

[ChentuoZ870]

Answer C says Scholars who are critcal of traditional legal research frequently offer alternative approaches that are also seriously flawed.

So put it in short, Answer C says Scholars provide flawed alternative approaches. Yet the articles discuss one flawed method and offer some alternatives. Nothing about flawed alternatve approaches.