#22 - Must Be True

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation
(See the complete passage discussion here: lsat/viewtopic.php?t=10971)

The correct answer choice is (A)

Global Reference questions can be time-consuming. Due to their general nature, the method of elimination is likely to prove useful—any answer choice that cannot be proven by the passage will be incorrect.

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. In lines 52-55, the author describes contingency-fee agreements as shifting the risk of failure from the client to the lawyer (as the client pays nothing if the lawyer loses the case).

Answer choice (B): This answer choice contains an improper comparison. The author describes the “uplift” fee arrangement as one that is “intended to prevent lawyers from gaining disproportionately from awards of damages” (lines 17-18). So, while such arrangements may not result in lawyers being paid larger fees than they would under other contingency-fee agreements, how much lawyers deserve to get paid is never discussed. No comparison can be drawn to that effect.

Answer choice (C): Whether or not the LRCWA’s recommendations are likely to be incorporated into the legal system of Western Australia is not entirely clear.

Answer choice (D): In lines 55-59, the author defends contingency-fee agreements, stating that they increase lawyers’ diligence and commitment to their cases. However, the uplift fee arrangements recommended by the LRCWA are quite different: they are not based on an agreed-upon percentage of the client’s damages. Consequently, we cannot be sure if the uplift fees would have the same effect as other contingency-fee arrangements: they might increase, but could possibly decrease, lawyers’ commitment to their cases.

Answer choice (E): While some contingency-fee arrangements involve an agreement of the type described in answer choice (A), we cannot determine if they usually involve such an agreement.

[tanushreebansal]

Hi! I had a question about A. I originally ruled it out because the passage says contingency agreements transfer the financial risk of pursuing legal action from the client to the lawyer. However, answer A does not specify financial risk, it just says "risk." Thus, I crossed A out- it seemed too broad given that we don't know about risk in general, we only know about financial risk.

Can you explain why this line of thinking is incorrect and how I can avoid going down this road on other questions?

[Luke Haqq]

Hi tanushreebansal!

Regarding the issue that you mentioned about the general, broad usage of the word "risk," you're certainly right to be giving heightened attention to that word, since it might be too broad to be plausible for a must-be-true question.

However, in this case, the wording in (A)--"Contingency-fee agreements serve the purpose of transferring the risk of pursuing a legal action from the client to the lawyer"--isn't too broad to be unwarranted from the passage. To the point of the word "risk," you're right that the passage is focusing specifically on financial risk. But since financial risk in litigation is a subset of overall risk in litigation, that's why (A) is warranted. Moreover, (A) is generally supported as true by the language around lines 50-55: "they provide financing for the costs of pursuing a legal action. Second, they shift the risk of not recovering those costs, and of not obtaining a damages award that will pay their lawyer's fees, from (55) the client to the lawyer."

In sum, you went down the right road, so it's something you want to do in the future--namely, asking yourself whether or not a term is too broad to be plausible on a must-be-true question. Try thinking in terms of subsets if you come across a similar issue--i.e., with the passage here being about financial risk, and the right answer choice referring to risk generally, which is supported because financial risk is a subset of general risk.

[annabelle.swift]

I think I chose E because I assumed that contingency-fee agreements would always entail the lawyer receiving an agreed-upon percentage of the client's damages upon a successful outcome. I know this was never stated in the passage, but I can't really imagine how else a contingency-fee agreement would look like. Could it be possible that a contingency-fee agreement would involve the lawyer receiving a flat dollar amount (say $10,000) for any award of damages between say, $100,000 to $200,000? Or would this still count as a lawyer receiving an agreed-upon percentage (albeit, an agreed-upon range of percentages)?

Thank you!

[katehos]

Hi annabelle.swift!

While it definitely makes sense that contingency fees are typically a percentage of any award of damages, you already pointed out why (E) is incorrect in your question: "this was never stated in the passage". Since this is a Global Must Be True question, our answer must be supported by the text of the passage, not our own understanding of contingency fees.

Additionally, the passage even mentions how there are "various types of contingency-fee arrangements", so maybe they can be flat rates (lines 11-12)! The point is that we just don't know from the passage, so we can't say that this Must Be True.

Just remember to rely on your understanding of the passage itself, not your outside understanding of the topic being discussed!

I hope this helps
Kate