Reading comp PrepTest 142 · Section 3 · Question 15

Correct. Question Type:
Must Be True

Strategy Overview:
Review what the Author says the goal of the strategy is and then define effectiveness in that context

Answer Anticipation/Relevant Lines:
This question asks about what it means that the Author calls something effective, and that is inherently tied to a goal—to be effective means to help achieve a goal. So we should check to see what the goal of stealing thunder is, and then define effectiveness through that lens.

We know from our notes that Paragraph 1 describes the legal strategy of stealing thunder and the rationale behind it, so we should check there for what it's designed to do. And there, we can see that if the damaging info is likely to be revealed at trial, it "should be volunteered" to prevent it from "be[ing] more damaging" (Lines 7-10).

So with the goal of lessening the damage done by negative information in mind, we can define effectiveness—which is always going to be defined as how well something achieves a goal. In stating that the technique stealing thunder is, in fact, effective, then, the Author must believe that it successfully decreases the amount of damage done by negative information likely to come out in trial. Let's find an answer stating that.

Answer Explanation:
(Lines 7-10) This answer lines up perfectly with our anticipated answer. The goal of stealing thunder, as outlined in the first paragraph, is to decrease the amount of damage done by a negative revelation. As such, if stealing thunder is effective, then it would decrease that amount of damage. This answer states just that, making it correct.

Key Takeaway:
There are some judgments that the LSAT expects you to clearly understand what they mean. Effectiveness is one of them, and it's tied to a commonly important topic on the LSAT—goals. Effectiveness is defined as how well something helps to achieve a goal.

Incorrect. (Lines 29-33) While the second reason that stealing thunder is introduced references the ability of jurors to form counterarguments, in that section, it's stated that the jurors are the ones who are forming those counterarguments. As such, this answer about lawyers themselves presenting such counterarguments and thus undercutting the ability of the opposing side to persuade is incorrect.

Incorrect. (Lines 41-42; Lines 54-59) This answer is way too strong in stating that it "invariably" results in success for those using it. The Author notes limitations to the technique, so there's no indication she believes it always works. Even without those limitations, there would need to be a statement in the stimulus strong enough to justify such an extreme answer, and no such statements exist (after all, we would have noted it!).

Incorrect. (Lines 50-54) Capturing the attention of jurors? That's not mentioned in the passage. The closest we get to talking about how jurors are feeling is in Paragraph 3, where it discusses their desire to make up their minds—not their inability to focus.

Incorrect. (Lines 11-12) There are no empirical studies done on the actual use of stealing thunder in the courtroom, so it can't be established that, in the real world, it works more often than it doesn't.