#2 - Must Be True, Author’s Perspective

[Administrator]

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

The correct answer choice is (E)

The obligation referenced by this question is the foundation of the author’s main argument: that the lawyer is obliged to the client, and, in a larger sense, to the court and to society. Correct answer choice (E) accurately states the author’s belief that this twofold obligation does not represent a conflict of interest for defense lawyers, because, the author asserts, the best defense can only be offered by one convinced of the merits of the case (lines 44-45). None of the other answer choices accurately represent the author’s perspective.

[SherryZ]

Hi there, thank you for your help!!

Oct 2000 LSAT, Sec 2 RC, Q2:

In this question, I hesitated between A and E. I chose A eventually but it is WRONG . The correct answer is E. Could you explain why A is wrong and E is right?

Thank you very much!

---Sherry

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi Sherry,

The idea introduced in those lines is that defense lawyers have what sound like competing obligations - to the defendant and to the court/society. This twofold obligation, which appears to be a conflict of interest at first glance, actually isn't according to the author, because the author does not believe that a defense lawyer's obligation to his/her client ever calls for the lawyer to make misrepresentations to the court. Therefore, E is correct.

A acknowledges that the obligations are competing with one another, which the author would not agree with, since the author thinks "The lawyer’s obligation to the court and to society also ultimately benefits the defendant."

[reop6780]

The correct answer is E while I chose B.

I thought the reason why the author mentions the twofold obligation of lawyers is that the author believes lawyers should not just defend their clients no matter what; hence, it matters for them to be convinced whether their clients are either innocent or guilty.

Answer B probably went a bit far as it does not necessarily "prevent" lawyers from taking cases of guilty clients.

Answer E is something I would have considered if the question was "assumption" type. I don't know where I can draw inference for this answer.

[David Boyle]

The correct answer is E while I chose B.

I thought the reason why the author mentions the twofold obligation of lawyers is that the author believes lawyers should not just defend their clients no matter what; hence, it matters for them to be convinced whether their clients are either innocent or guilty.

Answer B probably went a bit far as it does not necessarily "prevent" lawyers from taking cases of guilty clients.

Answer E is something I would have considered if the question was "assumption" type. I don't know where I can draw inference for this answer.

Hello reop6780,

Lines 20-23 talk about a twofold obligation, so that is enough to conclude there is no conflict of interest, as answer E says.

Hope that helps,
David

[ashpine17]

So I fell for the trap answer, which is A. Is A incorrect because it is an incorrect rehashing of what that obligation is? the obligation defense lawyers have is to their defendant but also to court and society and this choice doesn't include the part about their obligation to their defendant. Plus the question is asking about the author'a attitude towards the obligation and this choice doesn't answer the question about attitude but just restates (incorrectly) what that obligation is. is this the correct rationale?

[Robert Carroll]

ashpine,

The twofold obligation's two sides are:

1. defendant

2. court, and by extension, society

Answer choice (A) is acting as if court and society are on opposite sides of the obligation. That's completely wrong.

Robert Carroll

[ivan.l99]

Could someone elaborate further about why there wouldn't be a conflict of interest? I thought there was and I chose B

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

ivan the author here doesn't believe there's a conflict of interest. Per the final paragraph of this passage, the author believes that the BES T defense is authentic. In believing that, the author shows that they are convinced that the defense attorney can both be an advocate for the defendant and fulfill their obligations to the court. Answer choice (B) is inconsistent with the information in the passage. The author of the passage describes how defense attorneys should represent clients they believe are guilty. It's described fully in the second half of the second paragraph. If there's a way in which guilty clients should be defended, per the author, then the author cannot think that the attorney's obligations prevent them from providing that defense.

Hope that helps!