LSAT 60, Reading Comprehension, Q23, LSATHacks

DISCUSSION: I would say the author’s main purpose is to criticize the proposed reform. First they describe the reform (paragraph 2), and then discuss its shortcomings (paragraphs 3 and 4).

The right answer matches this quite exactly. But it’s at the very bottom. I recommend always quickly reading through all of the answers before considering any of them at length. It helps you avoid wasting time on trap answers.

___________

1. Nonsense. The author spends paragraphs 3 and 4 criticizing the reform!
2. This answer describes an incredibly massive topic! You’d have to discuss how judges are appointed, the police system, the right to a fair trial, civil trial financing, contract arrangement, legislation….
   Just thinking of the breadth of topics makes my head spin. Definitely not what happened in this passage. The author just discussed a proposed reform.
3. The author doesn’t say this. They wish the contingency proposal was less restrictive. But currently, no contingency arrangements are allowed. The author might think some contingency arrangement is better than none.
4. Similar to C. The author didn’t say this. They think the reforms should go further. But they might believe the reforms nonetheless will have a big impact.
5. CORRECT. Paragraph 2 describes the reform, and paragraphs 3 and 4 discuss its shortcomings.

LawHub Order

LawHub Order

---