PrepTest 142

Incorrect. There's no discussion of the motives of the proponents—no argument that, say, they're all public defenders and thus are motivated by an attempt to bias the system in favor of their clients.

Incorrect. The opposing point doesn't discuss the objectivity of jurors, so the argument isn't directly addressing a point made by that side of the debate. While the author's conclusion might contradict the opposing point, that's different from pointing out a contradiction within that argument itself.

Incorrect. The premise of the opposing point is that jury nullification helps shield against injustice. The author doesn't try to establish that that statement is false—instead, she argues that the juries too often make serious mistakes. It could be that jury nullification often shields against justice but too often results in mistakes.

Incorrect. The argument doesn't raise any examples, so this answer doesn't describe the method of reasoning.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Methods of Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Jury nullification Ð When the jury acquits someone who's guilty because they disagree with the law
Proponents Ð This shields against injustice
Opponents Ð When juries use their subjective view of fairness, they often make serious mistakes
Conclusion Ð Jury nullification relies too much on jurors being objective

Answer Anticipation:
This argument features a debate about jury nullification, where an argument is presented in favor of the practice before the author rebuts that argument and concludes that it "too often" results in serious mistakes. As such, the author here is highlighting that, despite there being a benefit, there are also serious drawbacks that need to be considered. The argument stops short of stating that jury nullification shouldn't be allowed, but it does come down hard on the practice in stating that it "relies excessively" on the jurors' objectivity.

The correct answer should reflect that the argument rebuts a viewpoint supporting a practice by highlighting the downsides of it.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights that the argument raises a downside of the practice—that it "too often" leads to "serious mistakes." Since this answer reflects the argument's rebuttal, it's the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
A common method of reasoning is weighing the pros and the cons. Sometimes, as here, it's different sides of the argument that do this—one side taking the pros, the other the cons. When this happens, the second viewpoint usually doesn't contradict or undermine the list of pros directly, instead raising the downsides that it believes more than balance out the pros.