Reading comp PrepTest 146 · Section 4 · Question 5

Incorrect. (Lines 33-35) Passage B is the one that talks about prosecutorial discretion, not Passage A.

Incorrect. The question stem asks about a case where the juries have determined that the case was too trivial to result in conviction, so it doesn't matter if, most of the time, the prosecutor has presented the case in a way that makes it not seem trivial. The question isn't asking about those cases!

Incorrect. (Lines 29-30; Lines 57-61) The only place where Passage A discusses disagreements over the law is in Paragraph 4, but that's over the scope of criminal law, not the evaluation of a specific case's seriousness. Passage B gets closer to discussing this topic in its last paragraph, but that doesn't tell us anything about Passage A's opinion on the topic.

Incorrect. (Lines 17-25) This answer is very tempting! However, the passage states that jurors might lack sufficient information to be aware of all aspects of a case, and that it's the role of judges to interpret laws. Neither of these arguments says that the jurors lack expertise to evaluate a case.

Correct. Question Type:
Must Be True

Strategy Overview:
Review what Passage A said about how juries reach the decision to nullify, focusing on the problems she raises

Answer Anticipation/Relevant Lines:
While this question stem mentions both passages, we really only need to consider Passage A here. Why? Because it tells us the idea in Passage B that we're looking for Passage A's Author's opinion on—that jurors are justified in nullifying when they think a case is too trivial to result in conviction.

So how would the Author of Passage A feel about that? Let's go through each problem she noted with nullification to see if it speaks to this topic.

The first problem she noted is that we don't get the jury's reasoning. Here, the reasoning is inherent in the question—they nullified because they thought the case was too trivial. As such, this problem doesn't apply.

The second problem she noted is that they don't have complete information, such as prior convictions or brushes with the law. This does impact the suggestion in Passage B, as the jury lacking complete information might mean that their determination the case is too trivial would be different if they did have complete information. So this problem could support a correct answer, stating that the juries lack sufficient knowledge to determine the case is too trivial and thus nullification is appropriate.

Finally, the third problem noted is that a jury is unaccountable since they're not elected. This also suggests a potential criticism from the Author of Passage A—jurors shouldn't be the ones making the call that a case is too trivial, as they have no obligation to think about what that decision has on others.

So we have two potential answers—let's head to the choices and find one of them.

Answer Explanation:
Lines 17-22) The Author of Passage A argues that certain information—such as past brushes with the law—are not afforded to juries. As such, their determination that a case is too trivial to result in conviction might be made based on not having access to certain key information, and thus it might be wrong. This answer reflects one of the problems with jury nullification presented by Passage A, so it's the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
Both of these passages had very specific structures, with a list of problems/benefits being presented. When that's the case, one way to anticipate answers is to work through the list to see how each element anticipates an answer.