What Does the LSAT Test?

 A standardized test required for admission to law school, the Law School Admissions Test (LSAT) has existed in various forms since 1948. The test comprises three sections: logical reasoning, analytical reasoning, and reading comprehension. The logical reasoning section aims to test a student’s ability to evaluate arguments by asking them to make an argument stronger or weaker and to identify assumptions and flaws an author may have made in their reasoning.

The analytical reasoning section often referred to as the logic games section, requires the test-taker to analyze the relationship between various sequences and objects and then create a set of rules that describes the relationship. In the reading comprehension section, students read passages to identify the main idea, detect assumptions or reasoning flaws, and draw conclusions.

In addition to the various test sections, the LSAT contains an experimental section that does not affect the score. Test developers use this section to test items for future use. It may appear anywhere in the test, and test takers do not know which section is experimental. Students also must complete a timed writing sample. Although the writing sample does not receive a score, law schools receive the sample with the student’s LSAT results.

Scored on a curve from 120 to 180, the LSAT aims to test an individual’s ability to utilize language logically and effectively. To perform well on the test, students should work to cultivate four core skills.

First, they must practice reading critically and quickly. Attorneys in the field must read vast amounts of text, scanning for relevant details. All the LSAT sections require critical reading, though the reading comprehension section focuses exclusively on this skill. Critical reading skills require efficiently reading and digesting information, then articulating key ideas to make an argument.

The second core skill required for a successful LSAT score is analyzing arguments, emphasized in the Logical Reasoning section. The test-taker must accept the argument in the test question as true before utilizing their logic to interpret and criticize the argument. This involves identifying the author’s conclusion, summarizing their supporting arguments, and articulating the connection between evidence and conclusion. Dissecting an argument to find the assumption is key.

Next, LSAT takers must demonstrate an understanding of formal logic rules. Test takers analyze arguments and solve logic games using a deliberate step-by-step process. After seeking out the conditional elements of a logical statement using an if/then formula, they can understand whether a statement is true, false, or possible.

Finally, LSAT success requires the ability to make deductions. In a Logic Games passage, for example, test takers must evaluate a group of facts and rules to determine what could or must be true. This requires deductive reasoning to determine relationships between persons, events, or things.

Organization and the logical interpretation of the rules are paramount in Logic Games. Test takers must eliminate as much uncertainty as possible from each game to obtain an efficient and correct answer.

Above all, the LSAT is a test of skills, not knowledge, which means successful test prep should focus on verbal reasoning, analytical thinking, and critical reading. Memorizing factual information does not tend to improve test scores.

Jury Rules and Social Media

Under the Sixth Amendment, any individual facing a criminal charge has the right to a fair trial decided by an impartial jury. To meet these criteria, jurors must not enter into a case with a preformed opinion about the defendant, prosecutor, or crime. Instead, the juror must weigh the evidence presented in court and make an informed decision based on the facts.

While any American citizen can serve on a jury, lawyers on both sides question potential jurors to eliminate individuals who may hold biased viewpoints. Media exposure to the trial or case is a common basis for juror rejection. If a case attracts a high level of public attention, it can be difficult to identify jurors who have not viewed potentially influential media before or during the trial.

Social media has complicated jury bias and media exposure, as many platforms serve both personal and informational purposes. People routinely share news articles with their online connections. Since individuals have little control over what appears in their social media feed, completely avoiding media trial coverage can be impossible.

Legal experts have raised several concerns about the proliferation of juror social media use and impartiality. First, jurors may be exposed to information purposefully excluded from trial evidence. This issue was prominent in a recent high-profile defamation case between actors Johnny Depp and Amber Heard.

Prior to the US trial, Depp lost a libel case in the United Kingdom. While evidence from the UK trial was not permitted in the following trial, descriptions of the UK trial’s evidence were easily searchable online. Conversely, thousands of media posts dissected the evidence presented in the US trial for signs of fabrication.

Jurors were instructed to refrain from researching the case, but were not sequestered. After the verdict, Heard's lawyers filed an appeal based on prolific media coverage of the trial and the potential of juror exposure.

Social media also complicates the ability to assess the case for a mistrial. Jurors may post information about the trial or sentiments that suggest a lack of impartiality in the case. However, identifying misconduct on an online platform is time-consuming, and evidence of juror bias may slip through the cracks.

To avoid these issues, state and federal legal systems have implemented codes of conduct for Internet and social media use. Jurors receive clear instructions to decide the case based only on the evidence presented in the courtroom.

This means that jurors should exclude any information or opinions solicited from outside sources from the verdict deliberation. Potential and selected jurors are also barred from doing any Internet searches on the trial or involved individuals.

The rules regarding social media consider that many people rely on these platforms to communicate with their families or run their businesses. For this reason, jurors are still permitted to use their accounts. However, they must not engage in any behavior that would affect their impartiality.

This includes sharing information about the trial or connecting with other jurors or litigants. The consequences for violating these rules are severe. Jurors may face sequestration or contempt of court charges. In some cases, juror misconduct can also serve as the basis for a mistrial.

Some Key Impacts of COVID-19 on United States Court Systems

 

Like nearly every system and industry in the world, the United States court system had to adapt to the global COVID-19 pandemic rapidly. From court closures to implementing health and safety requirements, the pandemic required courts to adjust and adapt while maintaining access to the court system for all litigants.

In 2021, Thomson Reuters surveyed 240 court professionals to gain insights into the pandemic’s impact on court operations. Professionals such as administrators, magistrates, judges, chief justices, attorneys, and clerks at the municipal, county, and state levels responded to survey questions. The results were compiled in The Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic on State & Local Courts Study 2021.

The study found that the impacts of COVID-19 on the nation’s courts could be divided into several broad categories. First, stay-at-home orders inspired most courts (93 percent of respondents) to implement remote proceedings. Courts quickly organized means to utilize audio and video technology to create virtual courtrooms, facilitating hearings with participants in multiple locations.

As of 2021, 89 percent of respondents were still conducting or participating in remote proceedings. Among survey respondents, 63 percent had conducted both pre-trial and trial hearings remotely, while 30 percent had conducted only pre-trial proceedings remotely.

While virtual proceedings can be convenient and efficient, they also present unique challenges. A primary challenge in virtual court is the management of documents. Organizing and sharing evidence, for example, and communicating regarding evidence can be problematic in civil cases. In criminal cases, the inability to follow rules of evidence can present constitutional issues that could be brought up on appeal.

Problems with document sharing emerged as another impact of the pandemic. According to respondents, these risks can be mitigated as court officials gain familiarity with technology solutions. Currently, many courts use email to submit sensitive documents and evidence. This is problematic as many people require access to such records, and individuals in the court system may have differing access levels to emailed submissions.

Implementing a shared platform that litigants, prosecutors, and defense attorneys have access to could reduce this problem, according to survey respondents. In addition to easing logistical burdens, this could improve transparency and potentially decrease hearing delays. Courts and court staff should receive training sessions in virtual technology before hearings.

In addition to the rise in virtual hearings, the pandemic has substantially affected court backlogs. Even in normal times, court systems struggle to work through their caseload. The COVID-10 crisis exacerbated the crisis, as cases continued to accumulate despite court closures, lengthy arraignment times, and temporary pauses to jury trials.

Survey respondents say a court’s caseload averages 12,300 cases in a typical year. In 2019, the average backlog was 958 cases, which increased to 1,274 cases over the pandemic’s first year. A third of courts reported a backlog increase of more than five percent.

While the pandemic presented myriad challenges, it highlighted where court systems could improve. Disruptions spurred the introduction of technology that has broadened access to the court system for many litigants.

As the court systems continue to leverage technology to improve efficiency, they must consider various populations. For example, people without access to internet service or a computer cannot attend a virtual hearing. Further, technology solutions must be accessible for individuals with disabilities and limited English proficiency.