Reading comp PrepTest 142 · Section 3 · Question 11

Incorrect. (Lines 32-33) The Author doesn't present relative timing as a factor in the success of stealing thunder. If anything, in stating that "previewing" it allows jurors to form counterarguments against what the other side will say about the information, the passage suggests that stealing thunder with more time before that information is presented would work better, giving jurors more time to form those counterarguments.

Incorrect. (Lines 54-59) The Author establishes that jurors who view the stealing thunder attempt in a negative light would thus be primed to view all evidence negatively—and so the strategy would backfire. While this implies that being able to assess how jurors will view information would be helpful in whether stealing thunder would work, the question asks us for something the Author mentions as being a factor, and so this answer falls short.

Incorrect. At no point does the Author limit stealing thunder to being done via a client's testimony, so this answer is out of scope.

Correct. Question Type:
Must Be True

Strategy Overview:
Review the factors listed out by the Author, then head to the answers and use those notes and the passage to confirm the correct answer

Answer Anticipation/Relevant Lines:
This is where our list comes in handy! We noted a few factors that made stealing thunder effective. First, it increases credibility (Line 20). Second, it primes jurors to be critical of the opposing view (Lines 25-26). Third, it makes the info less scarce and thus less valuable (Line 33)—though this doesn't apply when the info is overriding. And fourth, it allows positive framing (Line 44) to prime jurors to filter future information through that lens (Lines 52-54)—though this can backfire when it's impossible to spin positively.

Let's find an answer backed up by these reasons.

Answer Explanation:
(Lines 50-54) The Author states this in Lines 50-54. This can be easy to miss, but remember—in RC, viewpoints are particularly important, and subjective statements are important throughout the exam. Since these lines present the subjective desires of jurors, it's something that we should have noted, which would have led us to this answer. The passage notes that jurors want to arrive at a firm view of the case they're hearing, and so an early positive framing of damaging information might lead them to form a positive view, filtering all other information through that lens. This can backfire, but that only adds to the fact that the Author mentions this as a factor in the success of stealing thunder.

Key Takeaway:
Two takeaways.

First, note if the question stem in RC asks for something that's suggested/implied by the passage, or if it's asking for something that's mentioned/stated in the passage. These will lead to different requirements for the correct answer.

Incorrect. Similar to (B), this might be an implied factor in the success of stealing thunder since the views of the jurors are key to its success, but voir dire (the name for this screening process—law school isn't just in Latin!) is never mentioned by the Author, which is what the question stem asks for.