LSAT PrepTest 44 Section 1 Question 5 Explanation | Reading Comprehension

I didn't write the following blog post. It was already on the blog when I took over the URL. The following blog post may contain mistakes. -Steve

***


This Reading Comprehension question is from the October 2004 LSAT.

Let's recall the paragraph summaries we jotted down when we first read this passage:

Paragraph 1 = CAW pays for legal services

Paragraph 2 = Lawyers concerned

Paragraph 3 = Plan hurts legal services

The question's asking about what proponents of the CAW-style plans think. Our summaries show us that that can be found in the second paragraph, where various people's opinions are summarized (rather than in the first, which is narrative, and the third, which is the author's opinion). So, let's look back, as you should often do on answering all sorts of RC questions and especially evidence questions, and find a part of that paragraph that answers the question. We find:

"if people are referred to a firm and
(35) receive excellent service, the firm will get three to
four other referrals who are not plan subscribers and
who would therefore pay the firm’s standard rate."

So let's pre-phrase an answer to save some time. Proponents say lawyers will benefit from being in the plan because, more or less, "doing the lower-cost work will lead to referrals and they will more than make up what they lost." We see immediately that C fits that pre-phrase well, mentioning the new business the plan will generate that will ultimately benefit the lawyers. Let's quickly check the other answer choices:

A) Outside the passage's scope. Proponents of the plan never mention that the diverse legal problems of the clients taken on for lower fees can add to expertise. So this can't be what they're "strongly" suggesting, as the question says.

B) Out of scope. The passage says nothing about the lower-fee cases under the plan being longer or more complex.

C) Correct.

D) The opposite of what we want, since the passage directly contradicts this. The lower-fee clients wouldn't take business from nonparticipating law firms because those clients "would not otherwise be using legal services," the passage says.

E) Out of scope. Not mentioned and kind of nonsensical also...fees for other lawyers going down doesn't help the lawyers in the plan, as this question is mentioning.

Remember:

1) On evidence questions, close reading and identifying what the passage is and isn't exactly saying is very, very important. Be sure to look back at the passage a lot to find the information you need. It won't take long, especially as you get more practice, and it's well worth it since it can really boost your score. Do not try to memorize the passage or anything. It's right there for you. Use it!

2) After carefully reading the passage to know exactly what it says and doesn't say, or even just what it mentions and doesn't mention, have a field day eliminating answers that are out of scope or are the opposite of what the passage says. It's amazing how many answer choices these two very simple categories can eliminate! As we've seen on this blog time and time again with quite a variety of questions from different tests, those 2 categories can usually eliminate all of the answer choices on Arguments and RC.