#5 - Method of Reasoning

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation
(See the complete passage discussion here: lsat/viewtopic.php?t=11639)

The correct answer choice is (B)

The two line references represent the two perspectives presented. That of the first reference (lines 28-31) is the author’s perspective—that a lawyer should not present false information or knowingly present a guilty client as innocent. The second reference (lines 7-11) presents the opposing perspective of “some legal scholars,” who assert that the attorney’s role is to represent, not to judge. Correct answer choice (B) accurately states the relationship between the two referenced quotes.

[lathlee]

I had final contender as B or E, I went with E cuz B stated that opposing another opinion reported by the author in the ealier lines. What I don't get is I know author mentioned and stated of opposing side, but i am not sure how it was addressed can be considered as "reported" . also i do not understand why E is incorrect answer

[Shannon Parker]

Hey Lathlee,

The word "reported" that is giving you trouble in answer choice B can simply be read as "stated," "given," or "provided." It simply means the other opinion that author "discussed" in the earlier lines.

Answer choice E is incorrect because it requires "essentially equivalent assertions." The positions stated in lines 28-31, generally that defense attorneys should not give clients that they believe to be guilty the same defense that they give clients that they do believe to be innocent, is in opposition to the position in lines 7-11 that all defendants "are entitled to the best possible legal representation", and "lawyers have no right to judge defendants."


I hope this clears up any remaining confusion.

[lathlee]

Thank you, it helped a lot

[ashpine17]

So I focused too much on the lines themselves and couldn't see that these two lines were cited from two different perspectives to the opening question of whether defense lawyers should believe their clients. Am I supposed to read above and below the lines? Are these two lines basically disagreeing with each other? the first (7-11) would state that lawyers don't need to believe in their clients while lines 28-31 would suggest that a defense lawyer's judgement as to whether their client is guilty or not guilty should factor in how they argue for their client?

[Robert Carroll]

ashpine,

You should always know what the context is of these lines before moving on to the answers. There is no way that you should just read the literal lines themselves unless reading that alone will definitely give you all the relevant context. If you moved onto the answer choices without formulating the idea that lines 28-31 are the author's opinion and lines 7-11 represent an opinion with which the author disagrees, you did not understand the context of the lines and could not have been expected to select the correct answer.

The lines are strongly disagreeing with each other.

Robert Carroll

[ianngct2]

I'm not convinced that B is correct?

B.) "the author’s opinion opposing another opinion"

Context (but not otherwise stated): no lying under oath in court, no willful misleading by omission of truth, etc.

First sentence "They argue that lawyers have no right to judge defendants because it is the job of the courts to determine guilt or innocence and the job of the lawyer to represent the defendant before the court."
- Backdrop: all clients are entitled to the best legal representation.

Second sentence "Guilty defendants should not be entitled to false or insincere representation."
- Backdrop: literally the sentence before that: "But by the same principle, lawyers who are convinced that their clients are guilty should not undertake to demonstrate their innocence."
- Key phrase: "demonstrate their innocence", i.e. actively prove the client to be innocent

Implication for choosing answer B:
- if we imply that these 2 sentences are "opposing each other", then we imply that the defense counsel's job is to actively illustrate the defendant's innocence by creating a false impression to the jurors.

Principle:
- the defense job is to stop the prosecutors from proving that the client is guilty, it is only their job to create reasonable doubt to the jurors (assuming that these are criminal cases, line 6 says "crime", so be it). If the jurors make the assumptions or get the impression (via a prosecutors failure to illustrate the accused's criminal behavior), that would be the jurors' own misunderstanding. At no point in the process is the defense counsel required to demonstrate false facts (and insincere representation, as per answer B) (i.e. lie about something that didn't happen).

i.e. innocent until proven guilty vs guilty until proven innocent. Since it's the former, the defense lawyers' job is to show that the prosecutors done f up, whether or not the defense lawyer believes the client is guilty, and it can happen when the lawyer operates within presenting on truth (without misleading the court as answer B implies).

Bottomline:
Since answer B implies that the defense lawyer either 1.) has to inadvertently lie in order to create reasonable doubt, or 2.) not provide sufficient/appropriate legal protection against prosecution mishaps to any persons who at any rate has involvement in wrongdoing in any of the cases (they went so far as saying in the passage "The fact that every client is entitled to a defense does not mean that defense lawyers should take every case they are offered.", which means that the lawyer should hit the skip bottom so long as they know that the client has any level of guilt, whether the prosecutors were behaving appropriately, they should just let them roam unhinged) . Hence, answer B cannot be true.

[Luke Haqq]

Hi ianngct2!

Happy to address answer choice (B).

The question stem directs us to two specific line references:

"Guilty defendants should not be entitled to false or insincere representation. When lawyers know with certainty that a defendant is guilty, it is their duty not to deny this" (lines 28-31).

"They argue that lawyers have no right to judge defendants because it is the job of the courts to determine guilt or innocence and the job of the lawyer to represent the defendant before the court" (lines 7-11).

We are then asked about the relationship between these two references. Answer choice (B) describes that the relationship is "the author’s opinion opposing another opinion reported by the author in the earlier lines." So the line reference that comes later in the passage (but is mentioned first in the question stem) indicates the author's opinion. Use of the word "should" is at least a flag that might indicate that what is being stated is the author's opinion about what ought to be the case. Looking at this passage as a whole, the first paragraph discusses what "some legal scholars think," while the second paragraph turns to the author's own view on the issues introduced in the first paragraph.

Answer choice (B) tracks all of that--the reference from the second paragraph indicates "the author's opinion," and additionally, that opinion is "opposing another opinion reported by the author in the earlier lines," namely, the opinion of the legal scholars from the first paragraph. More specifically, those scholars in the first paragraph "argue that lawyers have no right to judge defendants" (lines 7-8), while the author of the passage believes that lawyers should engage in at least some judgment of the defendants they serve, for example, in order to determine whether their obligations to the defendant and society are best served by arguing the defendant is innocent, by conceding guilt but arguing for leniency, or by not taking the case at all.

In short, the first paragraph addresses scholars who argue that lawyers have "no right to judge defendants," and the second paragraph includes the author's view in opposition to this; the author believes that lawyers ought to engage in some amount of judgment of the defendants they represent or are considering to represent in order to best discharge their obligations to defendants and society.