Reading comp PrepTest 142 · Section 3 · Question 9

Incorrect. (Lines 11-13; Line 19) This is a very tempting answer. The Author does argue that stealing thunder has limitations, but that it is effective. However, she specifically notes that there is "no empirical research" into its effectiveness, and the support comes from "simulated trial situations" and "psychological explanations." While these are types of research, we don't know that it was psychologists and legal scholars who conducted them. This answer is wrong because of that detail.

Incorrect. (Lines 56-59) This answer does align with the limitation raised in Paragraph 4, but that is just one limitation on a strategy that the Author says, overall, "is, in fact, effective" (Line 14). This answer is too negative and limited, so it's incorrect.

Correct. Question Type:
Main Point

Strategy Overview:
Reiterate the main point that we outlined and then head to the answers, finding one that lines up with it

Answer Anticipation/Relevant Lines:
The Author introduced a strategy in Paragraph 1 (Lines 1-4) before going into a number of reasons that it is effective (Line 20; Line 25; Line 33; Line 44). However, she also noted some limitations on its effectiveness (Lines 41-42; Lines 48-50). Because of this, we said the main point is:

Despite there being no research, limited trials and psychological explanations back up the effectiveness of stealing thunder, though it may have some limitations.

Answer Explanation:
(Lines 16-20) This answer reflects the Author's view that stealing thunder "is, in fact, effective," and that this is a common belief of lawyers. She spends the rest of the passage after stating this presenting the psychological explanations of how it could work. This answer even reflects the limited nature of the strategy in saying that the strategy "may" influence jurors—not that it will, which would be too definitive based on the language in the passage. This answer is therefore correct.

Key Takeaway:
Note that there was a lot of value we gained from noting that the Author stated that there was no empirical research directly on the topic of stealing thunder. The type of support for a given conclusion is often key to questions, and so be sure to note how the passage characterizes that support.

Incorrect. (Lines 7-8; Lines 14-15; Lines 35-36; Lines 54-59) First off, the Author is, overall, a believer in the effectiveness of stealing thunder (Lines 14-15), so her main point isn't about the balance being against it. While she does recognize some situations where its use is limited, that's not her main point. Additionally, the specifics here are off. When the opposing side knows the information and when it isn't scarce/both sides present it, that's when stealing thunder is effective—and so this answer stating that it's a bad strategy when the information is too readily available is wrong. That said, when the info is too negative in impact, the Author does believe it shouldn't be used, so that part of the answer, at least, reflects her opinion. But most of this answer doesn't, so it's incorrect.

Incorrect. (Lines 11-12) The passage notes that there isn't empirical research designed to test stealing thunder's effectiveness at trial, so this answer is incorrect.