Reading comp PrepTest 153 · Section 1 · Question 16
Passage
Criminal courts frequently rely on accomplice witnesses (witnesses who testify regarding the role of an alleged co-conspirator in a crime)
Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage SummaryTopic: Legal Studies
Paragraph 1
There are many problems with the use of co-conspirator and jailhouse informant testimony, and the safeguards in place aren't enough to prevent false testimony from sending someone to jail because of a psychological phenomenon affecting jurors.
Key Lines:
Lines 6-10 - The phenomenon debated is introduced
Lines 13-16 - The problem is introduced
Lines 20-23 - The opposing point (Courts) is introduced
Lines 25-26 - The Author's opinion is introduced
Lines 29-31 - The first specific problem
Lines 35-37 - The second specific problem
Lines 47-49 - A potential explanation for the problem is given
Meta-Structure:
Debate over Problem. Normally, we'd see a Problem/Solution passage, with the debate being over various solutions to a problem. Here, however, a problem is introduced, and while there is a "solution" raised (the safeguards such as cross-examination), it's given very little space in the passage. Rather, the Author spends most of the time highlighting why the problem is, well, a problem, and explains some underlying psychology.
Last Thoughts:
On top of everything said before about the exploration of a problem, it will likely be important that we note the comparisons/analogies on which much of the Author's argument relies. Paragraph 4 and 5 both talk about research to a similar situation, rather than the direct topic at hand.
The topic is about potentially false co-conspirator or jailhouse informant testimony. The research in Paragraph 4 deals with confessions from the defendants to investigators based on incentives. The studies in Paragraph 5 build on this, talking about confessions that were either based on threats or promises of leniency. In both cases, the study is on a direct confession by a defendant, not on testimony that the defendant confessed to an informant or a co-conspirator. The similarity here is that the juries are weighing this evidence, and the explanation for how they process it is based on a psychological tendency to blame people's character rather than their situation.
Paragraph 1
- Paragraph note
- A phenomenon is introduced
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- Prosecutors use co-conspirator and jailhouse informant testimony
- This includes supposed confessions
- Paragraph note
- A problem is noted
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- Motive - These witnesses are promised something for their testimony, so they're motivated to lie
- Study - They're rarely punished for lying
- Paragraph note
- A debate over the prior paragraph is explored
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- Courts - Safeguards prevent lies from creating problems - e.g., cross-examination to ask about motives
- Author - They don't always work, like when a prosecutor hints at instead of promising something
- Paragraph note
- More problems with allowing this testimony are highlighted
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- Research - Juries give weight to confessions, even when based on an incentive
- Similar to situation with cooperating witnesses
- Paragraph note
- An explanation is given for the jurors behavior in prior paragraph
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- Psychological explanation - People explain actions of others by their character, not external factors
- Study - Person who confessed was guilty, even if threatened or promised a reward for doing so
- Similar to situation with cooperating witnesses
There are many problems with the use of co-conspirator and jailhouse informant testimony, and the safeguards in place aren't enough to prevent false testimony from sending someone to jail because of a psychological phenomenon affecting jurors.
Key Lines:
Lines 6-10 - The phenomenon debated is introduced
Lines 13-16 - The problem is introduced
Lines 20-23 - The opposing point (Courts) is introduced
Lines 25-26 - The Author's opinion is introduced
Lines 29-31 - The first specific problem
Lines 35-37 - The second specific problem
Lines 47-49 - A potential explanation for the problem is given
Meta-Structure:
Debate over Problem. Normally, we'd see a Problem/Solution passage, with the debate being over various solutions to a problem. Here, however, a problem is introduced, and while there is a "solution" raised (the safeguards such as cross-examination), it's given very little space in the passage. Rather, the Author spends most of the time highlighting why the problem is, well, a problem, and explains some underlying psychology.
Last Thoughts:
On top of everything said before about the exploration of a problem, it will likely be important that we note the comparisons/analogies on which much of the Author's argument relies. Paragraph 4 and 5 both talk about research to a similar situation, rather than the direct topic at hand.
The topic is about potentially false co-conspirator or jailhouse informant testimony. The research in Paragraph 4 deals with confessions from the defendants to investigators based on incentives. The studies in Paragraph 5 build on this, talking about confessions that were either based on threats or promises of leniency. In both cases, the study is on a direct confession by a defendant, not on testimony that the defendant confessed to an informant or a co-conspirator. The similarity here is that the juries are weighing this evidence, and the explanation for how they process it is based on a psychological tendency to blame people's character rather than their situation.
Question prompt
Which one of the
Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right
Credited answer: D
The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.
Question Type
Legal
Answer choices
-
ADo jurors give the Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice A is not credited
Incorrect. (Line 35-37) The passage talks about jurors giving ""undue weight"" to confession evidence, but it doesn't compare the weight they give such evidence from these two sources. Additionally, the passage talks only about two specific types of cooperating witness testimony, not all cooperating witness testimony, and that would be a reason to skip over this answer choice during a first pass. -
BTo what extent are Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice B is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 11-13) There was no discussion of any limitations on the ability to offer such incentives. -
CIs the bartered testimony Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice C is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 6-10) The passage lumps these two groups together, so there's no comparison of the reliability between them. -
DHow common is the Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice D matches the stem
Correct. Question Type:
Must Be True
Strategy Overview:
Use our notations and understanding of the passage to focus on answer choices that reflect the content, and then use our notations to find the answer in the passage
Answer Anticipation/Relevant Lines:
There's no guidance here, so we have to go in blind. Let's head straight to the answer choices and focus on those that reflect our understanding of the passage, heading back to check the right section of the passage for ones that we think are in play.
Answer Explanation:
(Lines 15-17) We noted something about this in Paragraph 2. Checking there, we can see that the answer is ""rarely,"" so this is the correct answer. (Correct question? This type of question gets weird!)
Key Takeaway:
This question type is going to rely a bit on you making judgment calls as to whether you should dig into an answer. On your first pass, defer on any answer that you don't recall being discussed in the passage. That doesn't mean you won't skip over a correct answer from time to time—but in order to get through these questions in a timely manner, you're going to have to ""bounce around"" and focus just on the ones that you can recall or have a note for. -
ETo what extent do Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice E is not credited
Incorrect. (Paragraphs 3-4) The last two paragraphs talk about the jurors, but we didn't note anything about varying ability to tell a lie, so we can rule this answer out.
What this tests
Question analytics
Based on historical answer selection rates for this question.
Answer choice distribution
Accounts
Save your place across PrepTests
Bookmark questions, build weak-spot lists, and pick up exactly where you left off—built for serious repeat practice.
No payment yet. We will only email when accounts open.
Already have an account? Log in
Deeper help
Ask follow-ups on any step
Optional AI tutor mode will let you interrogate assumptions, compare answers, and drill weak patterns without leaving the page.
Human-written explanations stay primary; AI is an add-on when you want it.
Discussion
-
Please Explain 2 replies
Started by sprozes