Q7

[mleeker]

I can see how (A) is right, but couldn't (B) be true as well? The advocates of the plan believe that their plan helps lawyers pick up new clients and develop a larger client base. The author says the plans "function largely as a marketing device for lawyers who have yet to establish themselves." Isn't this one of advantages that the proponents of the plan have pointed out?

[bbirdwell]

It is not, actually, one of the advantages that plan proponents have pointed out. The author mentions it this one time, and the author is not a proponent. Furthermore, the word "primary" would disqualify the choice even if the above were true. Watch out for that word -- the LSAT uses it and misuses it all the time...

[eunjung.shin]

Is it A because functioning largely as marketing devices which wil lead to lowered quality of legal services?


Are we supposed to link that far when doing role finding questions?

[jimmy902o]

why is C wrong? doesnt the passage say that it functions as a marketing device for lawyers who have yet to establish themselves? couldnt this be a benefit from the plan (for the inexperienced lawyers)?

[woodyguthrie]

At first I chose C, then settled on B (before discounting it for the reasons explained about [author suggests it, not plan admin]), and then chose A.

I took off C because the word 'unequivocal' would mean that it is a benefit with no draw back. Assuming it was a benefit, we can see that there are drawbacks when the author goes on to explain that the fees may not be recouped since the plan drives down prices.

[jimmy902o]

I agree that language is a little to strong, thanks for the insight

[kelseyjschutte]

I'm still a little confused about why B is incorrect. I took "marketing devices" to be synonymous with the benefit that the director of CAW states in paragraph 2--"lawyers get professional contact with people..."

So what exactly does marketing devices mean in relation to what paragraph 2 says and could I get a more in depth explanation of why B is wrong and A is right?

Thanks!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Great discussion so far. It's really important in questions that ask you for the author's primary purpose in mentioning _______, that you pause and consider the overall organization of the passage.

Line 43 appears in the final paragraph. If we ask ourselves what the author was intending to accomplish in the final paragraph that should guide us to the correct answer. The final paragraph is where the author's voice becomes clear. In the preceding paragraphs the author takes a very descriptive tone, describing the plan and pointing out how others view it. But in the final paragraph the author begins his criticism of the prepaid legal plan.

So why does the author mention "marketing device" in line 43? It serves as part of the author's general criticism that prepaid legal plans will lead to a general lowering of quality for clients. Answer choice (A) both makes this point and attributes this belief to the author.

Incorrect Answers
(B) incorrectly attributes the characterization of "marketing device" to the plan administrators, whose view is not represented in the final paragraph.
(C) is contradicted. The author views the "marketing device" as an aspect that will undermine quality by only attracting lawyers who are less able to satisfy their clients.
(D) incorrectly attributes the view to established lawyers, when instead the view is directly from the author.
(E) is stated as if the author didn't have an agenda of his/her own in the final paragraph - which is to criticize the effect prepaid legal plans will have on the quality of legal services.

[nflamel69]

I also think B is wrong due to semantic issues. The marketing devices is suppose to be a benefit to all lawyers according to the proponents. However, B suggest that it is a benefit that is caused by the administrators themselves instead of the effect of the plan. Can any geeks confirm this?

[xw73]

Good catch nflamel69! Can anyone clarify this?

[ohthatpatrick]

Interesting nuance! I think I probably would have forgiven that as just synecdoche (use of a part to represent the whole). The plan administrators (the people who conceived of, created, and manage the plan) probably think of the plan as an extension of them, since it is their creation and responsibility.

So if they are offering this plan to the world and saying “this plan brings lawyers benefits”, then it’s not a terrible distortion to say they believe THEY bring lawyers benefits.

But I think you’re right; it probably is another layer of defense LSAT has in mind for getting rid of this answer. It would read much more accurately to say “ways in which plan administrators believe prepaid legal plans contribute materially to …”.

We might also split hairs with the idea that it says that they (or these plans) contribute to the LEGAL PROFESSION, rather than just contributing to PARTICIPATING LAWYERS.

I had a real hard time getting rid of (B) because I felt like “marketing devices” was a callback to 30-37.

But the full context of “marketing devices” when it is uttered is “marketing device for lawyers who have yet to establish themselves”. THAT is definitely not a callback to 30-37. The plan’s advocates were not specifically saying new, unpolished lawyers would benefit most. THAT idea is something the author is advancing in the final paragraph, as a negative idea, and it aligns with (A).