Reading comp PrepTest 153 · Section 1 · Question 20
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
The author mentions the
Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right
Credited answer: C
The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.
Question Type
Legal
Answer choices
-
Areveal a potential problem Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice A is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 40-44) The Author says that the research is particularly relevant to her argument, so this isn't a concession showing that there's research supporting the opposing point. -
Bmake an unfavorable comparison Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice B is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 16-18) The only earlier study mentioned that witnesses who lie are rarely punished, and this study doesn't speak to that at all. -
Cjustify a conclusion regarding Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice C matches the stem
Correct. Question Type:
Argument Structure
Strategy Overview:
Use what we know about the paragraph and main point to define the role of a specific feature of one paragraph
Answer Anticipation/Relevant Lines:
Taking a look at our notes from Paragraph 4, we can see that it was used to highlight more problems with using cooperating witness testimony, so the research should be viewed in that context.
Looking at the paragraph itself, we can see that the research indicates that ""jurors give undue weight to confession evidence,"" though the research itself was on direct confessions, not cooperating witness testimony. Still, we did say that the paragraph's goal was to call into question witness testimony, and that's also the main point of the passage.
Our notes also say that the end of this paragraph showed that the research here suggests something similar (""they may also"") about how jurors view the testimony of cooperating witnesses. So while the study is about direct confessions, it's meant to highlight something that may be true of how jurors view witness testimony. Tricky!
Answer Explanation:
(Lines 40-44) The Author brings a study about how jurors view a direct confession back to a conclusion about how they view witness testimony, which lines up with the overall argument in the passage.
Key Takeaway:
In general, RC passages don't go off on tangents. The overall point of the passage was to discuss cooperating witness testimony, and all of the evidence offered would likely build back to that conclusion. Here, the Author discussed how jurors view direct confessions but still brought it back to witness testimony, and the answer here reflects that. -
Dquestion the relevance of Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice D is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 40-44) The Author states that the study is particularly relevant ""here,"" in a passage discussing how courts use cooperating witness testimony, so this answer is the opposite of the purpose of the research in question! -
Econtrast the way in Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice E is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 42-43) The Author connects how the jurors view a direct confession by the defendant to how they view witness testimony (""they may also . . . ""), so ""contrast"" is the wrong word.
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 1 reply
Started by sprozes