Reading comp PrepTest 109 · Section 2 · Question 25

Topic: Legal Studies

Paragraph 1

• Paragraph note
  • Evidence laws in the 18th century (assembled but some weird rules like the prohibition on parties testifying)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Author's view:
    • Common-law evidence laws in the 18th century had principles that are now considered bizarre (second sentence)
  • Example of a bizarre common-law evidence rule, according to the author:
    • Parties to a case were not allowed to testify (second and last sentences)
  • Author's attitude: "bizarre" (second sentence)

Paragraph 2

• Paragraph note
  • More on evidence laws in the 18th century (mechanically excluded evidence, like hearsay, without exceptions)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Comparison, according to the author:
    • Although the prohibition on party testimony was more irrational than most evidence laws, most laws were similar to that rule in other ways (first sentence)
  • Example of evidence that was excluded:
    • Hearsay (out-of-court statements), even when it was relevant and reliable, like when the speaker is dead (third and last sentences)
  • Author's attitude: "extreme in its irrationality" (first sentence), "quite typical" (first sentence), "rational grounds" (second sentence), "mechanically excluded" (last sentence)

Paragraph 3

• Paragraph note
  • Evidence laws' problems (truth unlikely) and Bentham's revolutionary recommendation (allow all evidence with only exceptions)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Author's view:
    • All these technicalities made it hard for trials to get to the truth, and change was resisted by legal people's reverence for tradition (first and second sentences)
  • Bentham's views:
    • Allow all evidence that's relevant with only a few narrow exceptions (third sentence)
  • Examples of exceptions:
    • Evidence that is too problematic/expensive, religious confessions (last sentence)
  • Author's attitude: "morass of "evidentiary technicalities" (first sentence), "unlikely that the truth would emerge" (first sentence), "frustrated" (second sentence), "revolutionary" (third sentence)

Paragraph 4

• Paragraph note
  • Author's criticism of Bentham's "nonexclusion principle" (some evidence is inherently misleading)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Author's view:
    • One problem with Bentham's "nonexclusion principle" is that some evidence is inherently unreliable and more likely to produce a false verdict (first, second, fourth sentences)
    • Bentham also acknowledged that some evidence should be excluded (sixth sentence)
  • Bentham's view:
    • The jury should be trusted to weigh the evidence (third sentence)
  • Examples of evidence that is unreliable, according to the author:
    • Evidence of a defendant's previous crimes (fifth sentence)
  • Examples of evidence that should be treated the same as sacramental based on social interests, according to the author:
    • Conversations between social workers and clients, or between children and parents (last sentence)
  • Author's opinion: "difficulty" (first sentence), "inherently unreliable or misleading" (first sentence), "actually more likely to produce a false jury verdict" (fourth sentence), "prejudicial character of the evidence substantially outweighs its value" (fifth sentence), "why not" (last sentence)

Paragraph 5

• Paragraph note
  • Author on Bentham's legacy (Bentham's ideas became close to the standard)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Author's view:
    • The method underlying Bentham's approach caught on after his death (first sentence)
  • Comparison, according to the author:
    • Although it has more exceptions than they would have liked, the current approach to evidence laws is mainly based on Bentham's philosophy (last sentence)
  • Author's attitude: "main thurst ... is Bentham's own" (last sentence)

Main Point: Bentham's nonexclusion principle was an imperfect but important idea that contributed to the development of modern evidence laws.

Innovative Subject: This passage most closely matches an Innovative [Subject] Meta-Structure.* In such structures, the author describes why a particular person, artistic work, law or legal accomplishment, scientific breakthrough, etc. was unique, pioneering, or disruptive. The "[Subject]" is a stand-in for the innovative figure or concept in the passage. So, this passage could be understood as an "Innovative Approach to Evidence Law" passage.

In passages with an Innovative [Subject] Meta-Structure, the main point will be the author's opinion on the innovative subject. The final paragraph gives us a succinct summary of our author's opinion on Bentham's work. So our main point will be similar to the information in that section – something like: "Bentham's nonexclusion principle was an imperfect but important idea that contributed to the development of modern evidence laws."

*But if you wanted to argue that this is an Importance of [Subject] or Old Approach/New Approach passage, we wouldn't exclude your testimony. Those Meta-Structures would certainly help you summarize the main point and map the passage's structure.

Examples: The author lists several examples that illustrate the 18th-century approach to evidence law, Bentham's approach, and the author's issues with Bentham's approach. These examples will definitely come up in a question or two, so highlighting them will help us answer those questions efficiently.

It's OK for an author to have concerns about the topic of an Innovative Subject passage. As you might in real life, authors can have multi-faceted perspectives on their subjects. In other words, our author can think that Bentham is innovative while still harboring some reservations about their philosophy.