Q28

[mrudula_2005]

Got this question right but I'm wondering what the reason is for eliminating C?

Thanks!

[rmoncel]

After getting down to B/C, I got this question wrong. Also looking forward to help on this!

Thanks for your help!

[jakeabel2]

I too narrowed choices down to B/C but chose C. What language rules out C, and points to B?

Thanks

[farhadshekib]

I too narrowed choices down to B/C but chose C. What language rules out C, and points to B?

Thanks

lets look at B and C.

(B) states that the examples serve to illustrate a vulnerability of rule systems in computerized legal reasoning.

If we read up a bit, lines 20-27 state:

"Early attempts at automated legal reasoning focused on the doctrinal nature of law...Such systems underestimated the problems of interpretation that can arise at every stage of a legal argument. Examples abound of situations that are open to differing interpretations...".

Right after, the examples are provided (Lines 25-30) to illustrate such potential problems.

Line 30, again, reiterates the authors purpose:

"Indeed, many notions invoked in the text of a statue may be deliberately left undefined so as to allow the law to be adapted to unforeseen circumstances."

Thus, the vulnerability that (B) refers to is the "problems of interpretation" that may occur at every stage of the legal argument - a problem that computerized legal reasoning systems are not well equipped to address.

My main problem with (C):

The answer choice uses the phrase "computer systems" instead of "legal reasoning systems".

While every legal reasoning system is a computer system, every computer system is not a legal reasoning system. So, initially, I did not like the broad scope of this answer choice.

Also, I found direct evidence for (B), while (C) was iffy, so I went with (B).

I'd love to hear what others think about (C).

[LSAT-Chang]

Good catch!!! I was down to B and C as well, and ultimately chose B because of the support I had from the text, but wasn't sure what was wrong with C until you just provided it! I totally think it is the word "computer systems" that makes this answer choice wrong.

[rpcuhk]

I can't see why the wording of "computer systems" is wrong, since throughout the passage, the author was concerned with "computer systems"

[timmydoeslsat]

I can't see why the wording of "computer systems" is wrong, since throughout the passage, the author was concerned with "computer systems"

I would not totally dismiss the answer choice with that wording. However, the author included these interpretative example problems in order to show us a flaw with the early attempt of automated legal reasoning.

I really like the last line in the second paragraph. It is essentially giving us a contrapositive.

It is really telling us that these systems cannot apply legal rules to novel situations. These examples cited are some of the reasons.

So the author is showing us this to illustrate a weakness. And this isn't a shock. The author, from the very first paragraph, was telling us how legal reasoning systems have failed to live up to the hype thus far.

[bbirdwell]

I think what changsoyeon meant by eliminating C based on the words "computer systems" was more that those examples are not intended to show that computers "can't handle" something.... rather the passage as a whole, and these examples, demonstrate how "computers + the law" doesn't work.

Of course, this is essentially what B says...

[timsportschuetz]

(C) is wrong because of the following:
1) Computer systems is quite weak; however, I would not eliminate solely due to this.
2) The main reason (C) is wrong is because of the word "isolate". This would mean that this certain section of the passage is simply identifying the certain issues that computer systems are incapable of handling. However, the entire reason for showing these examples is to illustrate a larger and more encompassing problem faced by computer systems: their sheer lack of having the capability interpreting legal text in an applicable manner. Notice how the passage clearly states that this is often due to legal statutes being deliberately written in vague terms and are meant to be interpreted on a case-by-case bases.

Therefore, the intention of this certain section of the passage was not to simply "isolate" certain issues, but rather illustrate examples in order to show the more encompassing issue faced by all computer systems.

[ttunden]

too add further, with C, I think that "in principle incapable of handling" is way too strong/extreme. If you understand the passage, the structure, and what the author is doing, he does not lead to this conclusion with the example.

He uses it just to highlight a weakness or significant flaw with the early attempts. B was safer so I picked that. I didn't notice the equivocation with the term "computer systems" during the test.

[weid247]

B is right and C is wrong, why?
The scope of this passage is the legal reasoning system, it is not the computer system.
B said the vulnerability of rule in legal reasoning system, it is actually in the passage scope.
C said isolate the issue the computer system can’t handle, it enlarger the scope of the passage, thus it is not accurate to express the function of this example.