Q15

[ryyang1118]

Hi, I am having a hard time understanding this question... Could anyone explain this problem?

[ryyang1118]

Thanks for your clear explanation on that question, Noah. Somehow the S4 on my PT59 version is reading comprehension, and my original question was Q15 of the "statutory law training" passage. Could you please shed some lights on that problem?

Thank you

[bbirdwell]

Hey there! Noah's busy, so I'll pick it up.

You say you were having trouble understanding the question itself?

It's sort of like playing the matching game. Four of the choices match up with the author's opinions/recommendations, and one of them does not.

The text of the passage is quite straightforward, yeah?

First paragraph/main point:
Understanding, applying, and formulating statutes (actual texts of laws) is important and not given enough attention in law school.

The remaining paragraphs are about the skills acquired in studying statutes:

P2 = interpretation of laws
P3 = synthesis of groups of laws
P4 = regional (some say this is a bad thing, but author thinks regional skills can be applied nationally)

So, these are the things we'd expect to see in the four answer choices that we don't want.

(A) seems really good at first. In fact, on my first pass, i eliminated it, and didn't see its error until I eliminated all five choices and went back through them.

The problem is in "references to court decisions." That doesn't show up in our passage anywhere. References to court decisions "involving statutes" are not the same as statutes themselves, which the passage is concerned with. Tricky tricky.

(B) "understanding...interrelated laws." Yep.

(C) "formulated." Yep.

(D) "wording...region." Yep.

(E) "wording." Yep.

I'm wondering if you chose (E) because it sounded too specific. It's a great trap answer choice, but totally supported by the passage, which says interpreting/formulating the actual texts is important. The wording of terrorism laws, though specific, is an example of a particular, "actual text."

Hope that helps!

[ryyang1118]

Understood. Somehow I neglected the very first sentence of the passage, which helps eliminate several choices.

Thanks a lot!

[pinkdatura]

Thank you for the explanation
I have two more questions about it
A I am wondering if A is a paraphrase of line 21, "lawyers answered by a direct reference to the wording..." belong to analysis of case, in that sense, eliminated as "odd man out"
Also, I am wondering why E is right as "appreciation of the problems of wording involved in drafting..." does it comfort to line 1 as part of "understanding of statutory law"?

[imasexybastard]

I'm having a hard time understanding where E is in the passage. The closest thing I can find is paragraph 2--interpreting. But if you can assume that one would develop an "appreciation" of the problems of wording, then why can't one locate references to court decisions?

[bbirdwell]

"an appreciation of the problems of wording" is almost exactly what lines 21-25 say.

Nowhere in the passage at all is anything mentioned about "finding references to court decisions." This is barely hinted at in the first paragraph, but it's in reference to a skill currently being taught, not a skill the author would like to be taught.

[interestedintacos]

"an appreciation of the problems of wording" is almost exactly what lines 21-25 say.

I don't think this choice is about interpreting, as lines 21-25 are about. It's about drafting the laws--the problems of wording in relation to writing the laws. It falls under the "formulating" the law like choice C.

[bbirdwell]

I don't follow. Do you have a question?

[interestedintacos]

A few people had difficulties seeing why choice E was incorrect--what part of the passage it fell under. I can see why it would be hard for them to connect it to lines 21-25. I was pointing out the way I saw it--that it falls under formulating laws, just like choice C (which I think is the first sentence in the passage). You can of course take a look again and see whether my reasoning is right, but it's not crucial. I'm just trying to provide my own explanations in order to get exercise in analyzing these things and potentially help anyone else who might be confused.

[shirando21]

Hey there! Noah's busy, so I'll pick it up.

You say you were having trouble understanding the question itself?

It's sort of like playing the matching game. Four of the choices match up with the author's opinions/recommendations, and one of them does not.

The text of the passage is quite straightforward, yeah?

First paragraph/main point:
Understanding, applying, and formulating statutes (actual texts of laws) is important and not given enough attention in law school.

The remaining paragraphs are about the skills acquired in studying statutes:

P2 = interpretation of laws
P3 = synthesis of groups of laws
P4 = regional (some say this is a bad thing, but author thinks regional skills can be applied nationally)

So, these are the things we'd expect to see in the four answer choices that we don't want.

(A) seems really good at first. In fact, on my first pass, i eliminated it, and didn't see its error until I eliminated all five choices and went back through them.

The problem is in "references to court decisions." That doesn't show up in our passage anywhere. References to court decisions "involving statutes" are not the same as statutes themselves, which the passage is concerned with. Tricky tricky.

(B) "understanding...interrelated laws." Yep.

(C) "formulated." Yep.

(D) "wording...region." Yep.

(E) "wording." Yep.

I'm wondering if you chose (E) because it sounded too specific. It's a great trap answer choice, but totally supported by the passage, which says interpreting/formulating the actual texts is important. The wording of terrorism laws, though specific, is an example of a particular, "actual text."

Hope that helps!

Could you explain how is answer C being supported?
I thought "how maritime statues are formulated" is like a legislative procedure thing...

[ericha3535]

I also have same question as above:
how is C supported?

Matt is saying that C is supported by the first sentence of P1, where it introduces the vital aspect of practice law.
However, this seems to be a mere statement that just explains what are the things that are "important" in practicing in law. This question is specifically asking what kind of consequences does the author anticipate to see by the course of action, which is to study statue?

B, D and E all appear in P2 or P3, even though E is a little stretch...
appreciating the word problem? I guess it's from line 23, where the meaning of legal texts can be vague...

I get that A is wrong too due to this decision... my stupid brain equated statue with decision...

But how is C supported? The p1 is general aspect of practice of law not something that would result from studying the statue...

[leroyjenkins]

In response to ericha3535's question about answer C, I think we have to consider what the question is asking. Essentially, the question is asking which 4 answers are consistent with an increased focus on statutory law, and which (1) answer would not follow from an increasing focus on statutory law.

We know that a proficiency in formulating statutes is important for practicing law from the first few lines of the passage. Despite this importance, we are told in lines 4-5 that law schools do not put enough focus on statutory law.

So, a knowledge of how statues are formulated (answer C) is perfectly consistent with the author's suggested course of action. In fact, the author seems to tie education to practice in the very sentence that ericha3535 cites in challenging C.

Answer A, on the other hand, would not follow from an increasing focus on statutory law. Instead, it seems to be more consistent with the "analysis of cases" mentioned in line 6.

[renata.gomez]

after looking at this for a while, i think I can see E as wrong because if you have a good understanding of the statue/law and how it can apply to other cases (as is discussed in PP3) then you're learning to appreciate the impact of certain words.

I thought about the lsat. the more practice you get and better understand the exam and apply logic to your every day discussions (especially when having arguments jaja), the more you notice how single words can completely change the meaning of an answer.

[LSATN100]

I incorrectly chose (C), because I misunderstood the meaning of "formulation."
In the dictionary, it has two meanings:
1) to create or prepare something carefully, giving particular attention to the details.
2) to express your ideas in carefully chosen words.

The word "formulate" in answer choice (C) uses the second meaning, which is close to "interprte" and "phrase."
I incorrectly thought "formulate" = "legislative process."