LSAT 101 | Section 1 | Reading Comprehension: Q17

RC Question 17 Explanation

DISCUSSION: The author never mentions traditional research again. It just provides context.

The fact that traditional research is bad affects how we view Zirkel and Schoenfeld’s work.

Since we know traditional research is bad, then perhaps Zirkel and Schoenfeld can be excused, even if their work isn’t all that useful. They’re at least helpfully pushing the boundaries of existing research.

___________

1. CORRECT. The fact that traditional research is bad helps us see paragraphs two and three in a different light.
2. There’s no opponent in this passage. The author criticizes Zirkel and Schoenfeld, but opponent is too strong a term.
3. Nonsense. The third paragraph shows that the author thinks social science tools can be very usefully applied to sex discrimination cases.
4. The author never said that traditional research hurts plaintiffs. They only claimed that it fails to help them.
5. The author doesn’t focus on traditional research after mentioning it. They didn’t write this passage to persuade researchers to use social science tools.
    
   Instead, the passage is a discussion of some social science tools currently being used in legal research.