Q17

[danielznelson]

I originally selected "A" and quickly finished through the rest of the questions, only to come back to Q 17 and its answer choice "D."

I believe I understand why "A" is correct - the introduction "In recent years..." begins the background necessary to bring context into the passage and the following sentence is a continuation of this.

But I need to know exactly why "D" is incorrect. Is it because the accusation is too broad in simply stating "legal researchers"? I thought that the lack of any quantifier left it open to interpretation and thus decided on "D." Is the answer choice incorrect because there is nothing yet to emphasize? The author doesn't delve into the marginal applicability of traditional legal research elsewhere in the passage. Is the language of the answer choice incongruent with what the actual role of the traditional legal researchers and their inapplicable research?

Thanks in advance for any help!

[maryadkins]

Your point about there being nothing yet to emphasize is good. More specifically, though, I would eliminate (D) because the point of mentioning traditional legal research (line 3) is to contextualize the scholars who are critical of it. And THEN the author criticizing THEM, the scholars. The point of mentioning traditional legal research and discussing it isn't to emphasize that it was wrong, because the rest of the passage isn't even about it. The rest of the passage is about people reacting to it.

(A) correctly notes that it's about providing background.

(B) is incorrectly because it doesn't summarize an opponent's position. There is no opponent's position discussed here.

(C) isn't at all supported and neither is (E).

Hope this helps!

[danielznelson]

It does! Thanks!

[kesikora]

Wondering about (E) here and why it's considered unsupported. I thought that the author is introducing a new type of research and hoping to win over some traditional legal researchers by explaining why traditional legal research is flawed.

[ohthatpatrick]

I feel ya.

If we start by asking ourselves, "What IS the author's characterization of traditional legal research?", we focus on the word "Justifiably criticized" in line 3.

If the 2nd sentence merely read "These scholars have criticized traditional for xyz", then we wouldn't call this the author's characterization.

So the author agrees with the characterization that traditional research focused on few cases, potentially atypical ones, and did not do a great job of serving real people with real legal problems.

The question stem asks us WHY the author brought up this characterization. We can look at the ideas that bookend this 2nd sentence for clues.

The 3rd sentence begins with "for example", showing us that Zirkel and Schoenfeld are an illustration of scholars who have started using social science tools rather than using the justifiably criticized traditional legal research methods.

(A) becomes very supportable because the transition of "for example" out of the 2nd sentence into the 3rd makes it easy to line up with "background claim for a subsequent discussion".

(E)'s purpose is a little more loaded. It makes the author come across as though she was more accusatory and more adamant about the need to change from traditional legal research. The author isn't wholly on board with social science tools, ("their enthusiasm seems misguided"), so we can't describe the author's purpose in agreeing with criticisms of traditional legal research as "Time to leave that behind, traditional legal researchers. You need to resign yourself to using social science tools now."

The author is more presenting a growing trend and evaluating it with mixed approval. He recognizes the failings of traditional research, but he also sees some faults in the social science tool of outcomes analysis.

Hope this helps.