Reading comp PrepTest 121 · Section 2 · Question 26

Topic: Legal

Paragraph 1

• Paragraph note
  • Although judges can disallow leading questions from court, it does not solve the bigger problem that any leading questions even prior to court can lead to adulterated memories of the event itself
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Definition
    • Leading question - question worded in such a way as to suggest a particular answer (sentence one)
  • Causality
    • Leading questions can lead to unreliable testimony (sentence one); so a judge can disallow such questions (sentence two); and can even adulterate the witnesses own beliefs about the even (sentence four)
  • Example
    • Two examples of leading questions leading to unreliable testimony (sentence one):
      • Lawyer trying to trick a witness by asking leading questions
      • Lawyer unintentionally prejudices by asking leading questions
    • List
      • Of those who may ask a witness leading questions:
        • lawyers, police investigators, reporters, or others (sentence four)
      • Author attitude: “by no means” (sentence three); “[a]larmingly” (sentence four)

Paragraph 2

• Paragraph note
  • Experiments show that new data that does not actively conflict with memories may be processed as belonging to the original memory
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Causality
    • Recent studies have both confirmed that leading questions can alter memories and led to a better understanding for how this happens (sentence one); and indicates that as to new data that does not actively conflict with memories it may either (sentence three):
      • reinforce the memories it corresponds with (sentence four);
      • or fill in the gaps to what we remember (sentence four)
    • Only memories that are given attention become clearly/stabily stored as memories (sentence two)
  • Example
    • Witness asked about car speed near stop sign may start to remember a stop sign even if they never saw it (sentences five - six)
  • Author attitude: “perhaps” (sentence one); “moreover” (sentence three);

Paragraph 3

• Paragraph note
  • What are tangential details to a witness’s memory are most easily adulterated but might be the most crucial details in a court
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Causality (also a Comparison)
    • Causal chain that older memories are more likely to be vague or incomplete and thus there is a greater likelihood of newly suggested information blending with the original memories (sentence one)
  • Comparison
    • Tangential memory details are more apt to being adulterated than more central details (sentence two); however these tangential details may be crucial in court (sentence three)
  • Example
    • Shirt color or hairstyle might be tangential to witness but crucial in identifying the perp (sentence four)
  • Author attitude: “may nevertheless” (sentence three); “might be crucial” (sentence four)

Main Point:

Prohibiting leading questions from courts does not prevent the problems they cause, because even before the trial, leading questions can adulterate the responder’s personal memory of the event

P1, S3 - Generalization

P1, S4 - Specific example

This passage uses a Generalization/Example Meta-Structure. These Meta-Structures can be challenging to discern, as test-takers sometimes focus too much on the example part without realizing why that example was included. At the beginning of a Generalization/Example passage, the author will often describe a common problem or phenomenon. The author then argues that a specific example of that problem or phenomenon illustrates some deeper truth about that problem or phenomenon. The rest of the passage will describe the example in-depth. Because most of the passage will discuss the example, it's easy to forget about the general point the author initially conveyed.

Here, the author started with the generalization that excluding leading questions from court does not eliminate the problems that leading questions cause. Specifically, the author states, asking leading questions does not merely prejudice the response, but also adulterates the memories of the person responding to the question! The rest of the passage elaborates on that latter example and the mechanism of how it works.

We do not have to remember all the nuances of how it works, but noticing the Minor Meta-Structures and remembering a few key details from those Minor Meta-Structures can really help. To that point, the author states that leading questions introduce new data to a witness and the new data can be processed similarly as a memory itself. The new data may support or fill in the gaps of memories, and memories that are older, vague, or seemingly irrelevant (the author uses the word tangential) are more susceptible to this process.

Causality

This passage makes frequent use of the Causality Minor Meta-Structure, showing a few interesting causal chains that may help us prepare for the questions. In the first paragraph, we are told that leading questions can lead to unreliable testimony, so a judge can disallow such questions, and also these leading questions can even cause the witness’s memories about an event to change. In the second paragraph, we are given that an experiment gave us new findings, including the mechanism by which new information may alter memories. Finally, in the third paragraph, we are given the causal chain that being farther removed from the event leads to a greater likelihood of one’s memory being vague or incomplete, which in turn leads to a greater likelihood that that memory can be altered by a leading question.

Example

The author also makes frequent use of the Example Minor Meta-Structure. In paragraph one the author gives two examples of leading questions leading to unreliable testimony. In paragraph two, an example of a hypothetical leading question altering a witness’s memory. And in the final paragraph, an example of how something may seem tangential to a person’s recollection of an event but crucial in a court of law.