#23 - Must Be True, Purpose

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation
(See the complete passage discussion here: lsat/viewtopic.php?t=10971)

The correct answer choice is (E)

Thanks to the VIEWSTAMP analysis above, answering this Purpose question should not be particularly challenging.

Answer choice (A): This is the Opposite answer, as the author is the one attacking—not defending—the reform proposed by the LRCWA.

Answer choice (B): This answer choice is incorrect, because the author does not offer a remedy to the problem described in the passage.

Answer choice (C): This may seem like an attractive answer, but it contains an exaggeration. While the author is highly critical of LRCWA’s proposal, she does not claim that it would actually worsen the situation it was intended to improve. If that were true, the author would have to show that the LRCWA’s recommendations would actually enable lawyers to gain disproportionately from awards of damages secured for their clients.

Answer choice (D): This answer choice is incorrect, because the author believes that the LRCWA’s proposals would have a decidedly negative effect on the legal system, harming both lawyers and some of their clients.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. The author explains the reform suggested by the LRCWA in the first two paragraphs, and critically evaluates it in the last two paragraphs.

[Capetowner]

If C did occur, say briefly at the end or something, would E still be a better MP?

[Jeff Wren]

Hi Capetowner,

You have to be careful with creating hypothetical situations and then analyzing the answers based on those hypotheticals because sometimes you can create situations that don't really make sense in terms of how LSAT questions actually work on the test and can create more confusion rather than clarity.

Hypothetically, if the passage had claimed that the recommended change would actually worsen the situation it was intended to improve, then Answer C would arguably be a possible correct answer as well as Answer E. However, that wouldn't/shouldn't happen in a properly written question on the LSAT, so there's really no need to determine which of those two answers would be better in that hypothetical situation. However, based on everything else that appears in the passage, such a claim would not appear in this passage without also changing other parts of the passage.

Instead, focus on what answer is supported based on what does appear in the passage.

The passage indicates that the LRCWA report contains "several important recommendations for introducing contingency fees for lawyers' services into the state of Western Australia" (lines 4-6). Since these recommendations are introducing contingency fees, presumably there were no contingency fees allowed in Western Australia before these recommendations. Since the author of the passage is in favor of contingency fees, the author would not likely agree that some contingency fees (even the very restrictive ones recommended) are worse than no contingency fees at all. The author's criticism of the recommendations is that they are too restrictive and that contingency fees should be available to all clients, so it wouldn't make sense for the author to think that the past (which had no contingency fees available) was better than these recommended contingency fees.