RC Question 27 Explanation
DISCUSSION: All of the wrong answers talk about arguments the author was making. Perhaps surprisingly, the author didn’t criticize uplift arrangements. Those were introduced on lines 13-20, without comment.
Instead, paragraphs 3 and 4 only criticize the financial restrictions discussed in lines 20-30.
___________
- Same as D and E. The author actually didn’t talk about uplift arrangements, apart from introducing them (in lines 13-20).
Instead, the author spend all their time criticizing the financial restrictions introduced in lines 20-30. - CORRECT. The author spent all of paragraph 3 (lines 30-40) complaining that the requirement to investigate finances would force lawyers to do a lot of extra work. This answer says that lawyers were already doing that work anyway.
- The author wasn’t criticizing predictions about whether the reforms would get enacted. They were critiquing the reforms themselves.
- Same as A. The author actually didn’t discuss uplift arrangements much. Uplift arrangements were introduced on lines 13-20.
Instead, the author spent all their time critiquing the restrictions on contingency arrangements discussed in lines 20-29. - Same as D and E. The author actually made no argument about uplift arrangements. Instead, they spent their time on the financial restrictions imposed on when clients could use uplift arrangement. (The restrictions on lines 20-29.)
I chose D as the answer and I am still not sure why this is wrong or why B is right. The question asks us to weaken the author’s criticism of the LRCWA’s recommendations concerning contingency-fee arrangements. On line 27, the LRCWA says “the lawyer must be satisfied that the client is financially unable to pay the fee in the event that sufficient damages are not awarded”. In lines 41-45, he says that this proposal would be unfair to middle class or wealthy people. If D is right, wouldn’t it mean that middle class and wealthy people wouldn’t be placed at as much of a disadvantage.
If B is right, how would that undermine the author’s criticism? Just because the current system makes lawyer’s carefully evaluate clients financial circumstances doesn’t undermine the fact that the proposed system will also be burdensome by making lawyer’s evaluate client’s financial circumstances. If the author said the new system will make attorneys do more of an evaluation than currently expected, I could see how B would undermine this stance.
So in paragraph 3 the author argues the new system will be costly for lawyers as they will be forced to investigate clients’ financial circumstances.
B says lawyers *already* do this investigation. So the author is wrong that the new law will force lawyers to do something new.
D actually supports the author. The point of contingency is that it is risky for the lawyer so they need to charge more when they win. But D says lawyers barely get to charge more. Meaning the new arrangement will force lawyers to take a lot of risk. The result will be that lawyers don’t use contingency arrangements.
Note: This is an old comment but I wanted to clarify the point.