Reading comp PrepTest 150 · Section 4 · Question 21

Topic: Legal

Paragraph 1

• Paragraph note
  • Trial court judges: Objections to conducting independent research
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
  • List of reasons to oppose independent research, according to some trial court judges:
    • It distorts the adversarial system (by undermining evidence and requiring an active judicial role) (second sentence)
    • Judges cannot conduct first-rate research (last sentence)

Paragraph 2

• Paragraph note
  • Author: Shouldn't be a complete prohibition on judges' independent research; first reason why (scientific evidence not suited to trial courts)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
  • Author's view:
    • The judges' concerns "have some merit" but not enough to warrant altogether banning independent research (first sentence)
    • Independent research could help the judges avoid such errors (last sentence)
  • List of reasons to allow some independent research, according to the author:
    • Trial courts, where expert witnesses are prescreened and compensated by both parties, cannot guarantee reliable scientific evidence (third and fourth sentences)
    • Allowing unreliable scientific evidence can also affect future cases, which can detract from the legitimacy of the court system (fifth and sixth sentences)
  • Author's attitude: "some merit" (first sentence); "do not justify an absolute prohibition" (first sentence); "there are reasons to sacrifice adversarial values" (second sentence"; "particularly ill-suited" (third sentence); "virtually ensures conflicting and partisan testimony" (fourth sentence); "exert considerable influence on future cases" (sixth sentence); "erroneous decisions detract from the legitimacy of the system" (sixth sentence); "could help judges avoid such errors

Paragraph 3

• Paragraph note
  • Author: Second reason why (the structure of the trial will guide independent research)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
  • List of reasons to allow some independent research, according to the author:
    • The trial's structure will guide any potential research (first sentence)
    • The research will supplement rather than replace the evidence (last sentence)
    • The parties will still present the evidence, which will reduce the probability of an outlandish result (first sentence)
  • Author's attitude: "reducing the possibility of a judge's reaching outlandish results" (first sentence)

Paragraph 1

• Paragraph note
  • Author: Appellate courts should not conduct their own research of scientific literature
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
  • Point of intersection with passage A:
    • The author is concerned with appellate courts, not trial courts (which were the focus of passage A)
  • Author's attitude: "appellate courts should resist the temptation to conduct their own independent research" (first sentence)

Paragraph 2

• Paragraph note
  • Author: Appellate courts lack tools available at the trial level for examining the facts
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
  • Point of intersection with passage A:
    • Both authors acknowledge the possibility that independent research could be unreliable (see "some merit" in passage A)
    • The author of passage B seems to have a lot of faith in the trial court’s adversarial system and its ability to produce reliable scientific testimony; however, the author of passage A said the adversarial system is “particularly ill-suited” to produce reliable scientific testimony
  • Comparison between trial courts and appellate courts, according to the author:
    • Unlike trial courts, appellate courts don't hear live testimony and cross-examination, which means parties can't test witnesses' credibility (first through last sentences)
  • Author's attitude: "lack some of the critical tools available at the trial level" (second sentence); "greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth — cross-examination" (third sentence)

Paragraph 3

• Paragraph note
  • Author: Appellate courts considering scientific literature undermines the trial court's fact-finding function
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
  • Author's view:
    • Evidence considered on the appellate level is not subject to rigorous tests the trial courts provide (first sentence)
    • So, literature considered for the first time at the appellate level undermines the trial court's fact-finding function (second sentence)
  • Author's attitude: "crucible of the adversarial system" (first sentence); "usurps the trial court's fact-finding function (second sentence); "potential unreliability" (last sentence)

Paragraph 4

• Paragraph note
  • Author: If an appellate court conducts research into scientific literature, it ignores its function
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
  • Cause-and-effect relationship, according to the author:
    • Appellate courts conducting their own research into scientific literature would cause the courts to use their questionable research methods on evidence that should have been tested in the trial court (first and second sentences)
  • Author's attitude: "ignores its function" (first sentence); "substitutes its own questionable research results for evidence that should have been tested in the trial court" (first sentence); "applies with full force" (last sentence)

Passage A: Trial judges should not be wholly prohibited from researching scientific evidence.

Passage B: Appellate judges should not conduct their own research into scientific literature.

Passage A:

Paragraph 2, Sentence 1 (P2, S1) - Author’s conclusion

P2, S2 - Author's first premise

P3, S1 - Author's second premise

Passage B:

P1, S1 - Author's conclusion

P2, S2 - Author's first premise

P3, S2 - Author's second premise

P4, S1 - Author's subsidiary conclusion

Meta-Structure? Relationship Between Passages?

Relationship: Different Scope: Passages A and B both discuss whether or not judges ought to conduct independent research. However, the scope of each argument is quite different. Passage A asks whether trial court judges should conduct their own research, whereas the author of passage B only seeks to make an argument about appellate judges*.

*A quick primer on trial courts/appellate courts if you overlooked or were confused by this distinction ... Suppose you want to want to sue someone who wronged you. You'll first bring that case to a trial court. Typically, a judge will hear your case, and a jury will make a decision about the evidence presented by you and the person you sued. Now, let's say the jury rendered a verdict, and that verdict didn't go your way. If you're lucky (and well-funded), you can appeal your case in an appellate court. However, the appellate court generally won't review the facts in your case. (This is what passage B means by the trial court's "fact-finding function," PB, P3, S2). But, the appellate court can review the trial judge's legal decisions, like whether pieces of evidence should have been presented to or excluded from the jury or whether the judge provided appropriate instructions to the jury.

Relationship: Opposing Views: However, there are a few points in which the scopes of the two passages overlap. In the second paragraph of passage B, the author discusses mechanisms available in the trial court, like live testimony, judges’ questioning of witnesses, and, especially, cross-examination. The author of passage B seems to have a lot of faith in these mechanisms’ ability to produce reliable scientific testimony; however, the author of passage A said the adversarial system is “particularly ill-suited” to produce reliable scientific testimony. Therefore, we can conclude that there is at least one clear point of disagreement between the authors: whether the trial court is a good place to produce reliable, scientific evidence.

Meta-Structure: Question/Answer: Passages A and B each seek to answer a similar question: should judges conduct independent research to aid their decision-making? Now, passage A asks if trial courts should conduct this research, while passage B asks if appellate courts should conduct this research. But, understanding that both passages are written to answer a question helps us determine each author's main point: the answer to their question.

Meta-Structure: Comparison: In Passage B, the author compares appellate courts with trial courts. The differences between the two are integral to the author's argument — mainly that trial courts allow for live testimony and cross-examination. In contrast, these tools are not available at the appellate level. The lack of opportunity to test any added evidence makes a strong case against allowing for independent research by appellate judges.

Since this is a comparative passage, consider pausing before the questions to think about the main similarities and differences between the passages. In this case:

Differences:

Passage A:

Question: Should judges conduct their own research?

Scope: Trial judges

Answer: Yes (at least, it should not be completely prohibited)

Passage B:

Question: Should judges conduct their own research?

Scope: Appellate judges

Answer: No