#6 - Must Be True

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

(See the complete passage discussion here: lsat/viewtopic.php?t=14629)

Must Be True. The correct answer choice is (A)

This question asks what must be true about members of the CAW plan. This answer must come from
the first paragraph, which defines the plan. The second and third paragraphs are argumentative, not
descriptive, and discuss what might be true, rather than what is certain.

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. In the first paragraph the author describes the
CAW plan, and points out that members can use outside lawyers.

Answer choice (B): The author never discusses what the CAW plan members believe about the relative
quality of legal services. While subscriptions to this service appear to be growing in number, this may
be attributable to purely economic factors. We cannot assume anything about members’ perceptions of
quality.

Answer choice (C): The passage does not specifically state what kinds of legal services the plan
members will require, so this response is incorrect.

Answer choice (D): The author states in lines 8-12 that outside lawyers can charge an additional fee, not
that they always will. While it seems reasonable to assume that extra fees might be commonplace, we
cannot assume that in every case members must pay an additional fee for outside services.

Answer choice (E): The author points out that the CAW plan was designed to benefit active and retired
auto workers and their families. This answer choice, which asserts that membership is not limited to this
group, cannot be justifiably concluded. There may be other members who are allowed to benefit from
this plan, but the passage offers no information about any other members.

[deck1134]

Hi PowerScore,

I went through this question and eliminated (B), (C), and (E) with ease.

I then thought that both (A) and (D) could be true.

To be honest, this felt like a fairly "cheap" question. The author does not say that they cost extra, sure. But it is heavily, heavily, heavily implied. Why would an author set up a dichotomy between two services, and then elaborate that one is free ("fully covered by a plan"), if not to indicate that it costs money? Likewise, on line 11, the author elaborates that the lawyers "can charge a higher fee and collect the balance"--meaning that it does cost more money.

Sorry to sound bitter: this seems to be a poorly written question! I understand why (A) is right. But (D) is almost certainly not wrong, and it can be reasoned by using very similar reasoning patterns to hundreds of reading comp questions.

[JuanB3rnal]

Deck, I feel you on this, I just got the question wrong as well becauseI used a similar thought process while taking the exam, but when I sat down and did some analysis I immediately saw this and would like to share that with you (and others).

The key operating word in the response that makes (D) wrong is the "must". While yes, it is implied that outside lawyers are highly likely to be more expensive than the plan lawyers, lines 8-12 state that outside lawyers "can either sign up with the plan... and accept the CAW's fee schedule as payment in full, or they can charge a higher fee and collect the balance from the client." The passage is stating that the lawyers have an option, while answer choice (D) is too narrow/strong and thus isn't correct.

I see (A) as being right merely because the other options are wrong. I took other benefits to mean completely unrelated things (like being a plan member gives the right to use the pool at their local gym or something like that lol) so I discarded it, but it is hard to for me to accept that "benefits beyond" means simply being able to hire outside lawyers (even if I CAN still see the point, somewhat)

This exam makes me SO upset sometimes.

[Jonathan Evans]

Hi, Deck and Juan!

Great questions and good analysis.

There is an important distinction here between "must pay" and "might pay" as y'all have pointed out. In the event that a plan participant goes with an outside lawyer, the passage stipulates (lines 9-13) that the outside lawyer could sign up at the plan rate or charge the difference. Thus we do not have evidence to support answer choice (D). The plan participants might have to pay more, if the lawyer charges more, or they might not, if the lawyer signs up at the plan rate.

The support for answer choice (A) is that the participants can retain non-plan staff lawyers if they wish. The evidence comes from the same area of the passage. The fact that participants are not restricted to the plan staff lawyers means they can enjoy outside benefits.

Keep up the good work!

[lanereuden]

I am not sure if this question was completely answered....
The prior poster wrote:
"I took other benefits to mean completely unrelated things (like being a plan member gives the right to use the pool at their local gym or something like that lol) so I discarded it"

I thought the exact same, i.e. I thought A was right...and when taking the test, I even acknowledged the points about being partially or fully paid by plan. I still cannot get over the meaning of benefits here.

A plan's benefits mean anything other than what you expect, i.e. a lawyer. Benefits to me meant over and above the main crux of the plan, e.g. retirement funds, or perks like pool passes etc.

What do I do next time to ensure I do construct the term benefit only in such a broad manner? Or what other pieces here could I use to see benefit as including outside lawyer ....At present, I just don't get it.

[Zach Foreman]

Lane,
I can definitely see why you defined "benefits" more narrowly. What if it were presented as "If you pay for the plan you have access to our lawyer on staff. But that's not all! We have a network of outside lawyers whose fees are either fully covered or who will work for an additional fee.

So, a benefit is "more than what you would expect" i.e. a staff lawyer.

It's like if you are in the military and you're medical plan includes not only the military hospitals, but also access to any hospital that is in partnership for free or a reduced fee. Or another analogy. Your university meal plan includes free meals at all the dining halls, but also select outside restaurants are included for free meals or some with additional fees. I can see how that would be a benefit of the plan.
The main rule is that you cannot have such a constricted definition that you rule out all the answers.

[SGD2021]

Hello, what would be the quickest way to answer a question like this where we have to find direct support in the passage and there are very specific answer choices? There were a few answer choices that I found myself having to go back to the passage to confirm/deny which felt like it took up too much time. Is this the fastest/best approach or is there a quicker method/steps to follow to answer RC questions like this?
Thank you!

[Adam Tyson]

Start by sorting the answers into those that you feel are worth researching and those that are definitely not worth your time. You might, for example, determine that answer B is not worth your time because the passage never discussed what the plan members believe.

Then, once you have sorted out the answers, choose the answer you like the best and research it first. Don't just plow through them in order! If you are leaning towards one answer, see if you can find evidence to support it in the text, and if you can, stop what you're doing and select that answer. You're done! Don't go through extra steps to disprove the other answers after you have already proven that one answer is correct.

You still may have to research more than one answer, but if you prioritize that work based on your initial preference for some answers over others, you will usually be able to cut that process down to a more manageable amount of time and effort.

[ashpine17]

i thought e was supported by the last sentence in the first paragarph? that department stores are offering services to their clients?

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi Ash,

That's a general legal services plan, not the CAW legal services plan. The question here is asking about what we can infer about CAW legal services plan members. The members of a similar plan from a credit card company would not be the same as the members of the CAW plan, or at least we have no reason to think they are the same.

Hope that helps!