Law School Discussion

(Almost) Complete list of questions for RC Passage #1

(Almost) Complete list of questions for RC Passage #1
« on: October 06, 2004, 08:30:32 PM »
I think I'm missing 2-3 of these questions.  Help, anyone?

CANDAIAN AUTOWORKERS (LEGAL SERVICES)

1.  What is  the structure of the passage?
    (Answer was something like "author lays out phenomenon, discusses effects of it, then expresses disapproval")

2.  Which of the following statements was most supported by the passage?
    (I put "There are other benefits to the plan besides just using lawyers who are on the plan" -- because members could use an outside lawyer and pay the diff .between the plan’s subsidy and the lawyer’s fee)

3.  Which of the following was NOT supported by the passage?
    (I put "People on the plan must pay an extra fee for an outside lawyer."  I’m pretty sure this is right -- the only reason they would have to pay more is if the lawyer’s fee was greater than the subsidy of the plan)

4.  What is the author's purpose in mentioning "marketing devices"?
    (I put that it expresses a criticism of the plans.  But other people have made convincing cases for "represents a benefit of the plan according to its supporters.")

Re: (Almost) Complete list of questions for RC Passage #1
« Reply #1 on: October 06, 2004, 08:35:03 PM »
for #3, if they hired an outside lawyer, they would have to pay the difference, so that was mentioned in the passage, right?

Re: (Almost) Complete list of questions for RC Passage #1
« Reply #2 on: October 06, 2004, 08:39:45 PM »
for #3, if they hired an outside lawyer, they would have to pay the difference, so that was mentioned in the passage, right?
Yes, that is what the passage said.  But it wasn't a rule that they HAD to pay an extra fee for an outside lawyer; they just weren't going to receive any more than a set amount of subsidy from the union.  It would only be mandatory to pay an extra fee for an outside lawyer if it were true that all outside lawyers cost more than the plan.  That might be true, but the passage never said that.
I don't know, it's a subtle one... but I have the memory that all the other answer choices were actually explicitly stated in the passage, so this seemed like the best choice.

Re: (Almost) Complete list of questions for RC Passage #1
« Reply #3 on: October 06, 2004, 08:42:20 PM »
I agree with jag2004.
The extra fee is at the option of the lawyer and that lawyer is responsible for collecting it from the client (the insurer exempts itself from involvement).  An irrelevant (to the questions) implication of this, but an interesting one from a practical point of view, is that this massively increases the overhead of the lawyer who does charge extra because at the standard rate lawyers doesn't even have to do any billing besides the insurance company.

BIG H2001

Re: (Almost) Complete list of questions for RC Passage #1
« Reply #4 on: October 06, 2004, 09:05:23 PM »
jag,

do you remember any of the other answer choices for questions 2 and 3 that you listed?

Javert

  • ****
  • 1608
  • Time.
    • AOL Instant Messenger - Rov47
    • View Profile
    • Spirit of Sisyphus
Re: (Almost) Complete list of questions for RC Passage #1
« Reply #5 on: October 07, 2004, 12:46:41 AM »
Quote
2.  Which of the following statements was most supported by the passage?
    (I put "There are other benefits to the plan besides just using lawyers who are on the plan" -- because members could use an outside lawyer and pay the diff .between the plan’s subsidy and the lawyer’s fee)

Except those lawyers had to sign up. Doesn't that make them, by definition, part of the plan? I went with the "Outside Fee" one, on the implication that most 'outside lawyers' would charge more, otherwise they'd be part of the plan to begin with.... but you may be right.

Javert

  • ****
  • 1608
  • Time.
    • AOL Instant Messenger - Rov47
    • View Profile
    • Spirit of Sisyphus
Re: (Almost) Complete list of questions for RC Passage #1
« Reply #6 on: October 07, 2004, 01:41:34 AM »
I'm sorry, let me try stating my point again, this time more clearly:

One of the responses was something like, "Members fo this plan would have to pay for an outside lawyer", or words to that effect. An "outside lawyer" who was part of the plan is by definition NOT an outside lawyer IMO; he's part of the plan. That makes him a "cooperating lawyer". An outside lawyer, conversely, is one who has nothing to do with the plan and the workers would have to pay for it. However, I think this was just a poorly written question overall... which is why you can get a 180 even if you get a few wrong. :).

Re: (Almost) Complete list of questions for RC Passage #1
« Reply #7 on: October 07, 2004, 07:34:29 AM »
I'm sorry, let me try stating my point again, this time more clearly:

One of the responses was something like, "Members fo this plan would have to pay for an outside lawyer", or words to that effect. An "outside lawyer" who was part of the plan is by definition NOT an outside lawyer IMO; he's part of the plan. That makes him a "cooperating lawyer". An outside lawyer, conversely, is one who has nothing to do with the plan and the workers would have to pay for it. However, I think this was just a poorly written question overall... which is why you can get a 180 even if you get a few wrong. :).

Well, the passage made a clear distinction between lawyers on the plan and outside lawyers.  The former would be fully paid-for by the union.  If a union member wanted to use an outside lawyer, however, the union would pay a set amount, and then if the outside lawyer's fee was more than that, the union member would have to pay the difference.

legallyliz

Re: (Almost) Complete list of questions for RC Passage #1
« Reply #8 on: October 07, 2004, 02:09:50 PM »
I'm sorry, let me try stating my point again, this time more clearly:

One of the responses was something like, "Members fo this plan would have to pay for an outside lawyer", or words to that effect. An "outside lawyer" who was part of the plan is by definition NOT an outside lawyer IMO; he's part of the plan. That makes him a "cooperating lawyer". An outside lawyer, conversely, is one who has nothing to do with the plan and the workers would have to pay for it. However, I think this was just a poorly written question overall... which is why you can get a 180 even if you get a few wrong. :).

Well, the passage made a clear distinction between lawyers on the plan and outside lawyers.  The former would be fully paid-for by the union.  If a union member wanted to use an outside lawyer, however, the union would pay a set amount, and then if the outside lawyer's fee was more than that, the union member would have to pay the difference.

actually, I think Javert is correct in the vagueness of this question.  If a member of the Union decided to take on an "outside attorney", the attorney had two choices, either take the payment amount the Union would offer in the plan OR have their own fee amounts, where the Union would pay up to the amount they would offer if the attorney chose the former option.  I agree with Javert in that this was a poorly written question.  I was debating over two answer choices, one of which was the "members...have to pay for outside attorney", and I think I ended up picking that answer over the other one.  Now, I have a feeling that it could be wrong.  :( ...guess we'll find out in 2 weeks.