PrepTest 146
[lcid:3683] Prep Test 146 LSAT — Reading Comp — S4
Reading comp
Passage
Passage A . Jury nullification occurs when the jury acquits the . defendant in a criminal case in disregard of
Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage SummaryTopic: Legal Studies
Passage A
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
Passage A - Jury nullification, while probably rare, creates many problems for criminal law.
Passage B - While jury nullification has the potential to be done for the wrong reasons, that's probably rare, and it solves a lot of problems with law enforcement and for the legislature.
Key Lines:
Passage A:
Lines 8-10 - The Author's opinion is stated
Line 11 - A problem is described
Line 17-18 - A problem is described
Lines 25-28 - A problem is described
Lines 30-32 - The Author's opinion is reiterated
Passage B:
Lines 36-40 - A benefit is noted by the Author
Lines 41-43 - Another benefit is noted
Lines 51-53 - Another benefit is noted
Lines 54-56 - A problem is noted that is said to be rare
Meta-Structure - Relationship Between Passages:
List of Problems (Passage A) - The Author starts the passage out with a statement that a certain practice has problems, and then she goes through a list of those problems. Note that our Key Lines for this list generally featured the first line of each statement, but it didn't always. Being able to identify the "best" line summing up each problem is a key way to be able to really understand these passages!
List of Benefits (Passage B) - In a mirrored structure to Passage A, Passage B notes that the same practice has benefits, and then it goes about listing those benefits. This mirrored structure reflects their opposite opinions of jury nullification.
Which brings us to the relationship between the passages. They both use a similar structure to make opposite arguments. In Passage A, problems with jury nullification are noted. In Passage B, the benefits of jury nullification are described. These problems and benefits aren't perfectly mirrored—Passage B doesn't address each downside in Passage A by suggesting that it's actually a benefit—but they do overlap in discussing the role of the legislature in the criminal justice system.
Last Thoughts:
Since the passages reach different conclusions, we should expect questions about differences between them, and answers that reflect differences. The exception to that is any question about Argument Structure or Methods of Reasoning since the way that they make their arguments is actually quite similar.
Passage A
Paragraph 1
- Paragraph note
- A problematic phenomenon is introduced
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
- Jury nullification - Jury thinks someone is guilty but say innocent (mercy, dislike of victim, civil disobedience)
- Probably rare, but problematic
- Paragraph note
- First problem noted (No reasoning)
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
- Juries don't release reasoning, so don't know how often and how used
- Paragraph note
- Second problem noted (Not all info)
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
- Juries don't have full knowledge (e.g., prior crimes)
- Paragraph note
- Third problem noted (Unaccountable)
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
- Legislature passes laws; judges interpret
- Jury not accountable, so don't need to think of overall effect
- Paragraph note
- Wrap up
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
- Disagreement over criminal law should happen in public, not in jury box
Paragraph 1
- Paragraph note
- Benefit of nullification (Protect against overzealous prosecution)
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
- Police and prosecutors sometimes "overzealous"
- Jury nullification can protect against this
- Paragraph note
- Another benefit of nullification (Help legislature)
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
- Legislature makes general/broad because they can't cover all cases or make everyone happy
- Nullification helps legislature
- Paragraph note
- Another benefit of nullification (Tell legislature the law is bad)
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
- More help for legislatures - send message that law has a problem with it
- Paragraph note
- Problem with nullification (bad reasoning); frequency is discussed
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
- Problem - Might be based on bad reasoning
- Frequency of problem - Rare, since all 12 have to agree to nullify
Passage A - Jury nullification, while probably rare, creates many problems for criminal law.
Passage B - While jury nullification has the potential to be done for the wrong reasons, that's probably rare, and it solves a lot of problems with law enforcement and for the legislature.
Key Lines:
Passage A:
Lines 8-10 - The Author's opinion is stated
Line 11 - A problem is described
Line 17-18 - A problem is described
Lines 25-28 - A problem is described
Lines 30-32 - The Author's opinion is reiterated
Passage B:
Lines 36-40 - A benefit is noted by the Author
Lines 41-43 - Another benefit is noted
Lines 51-53 - Another benefit is noted
Lines 54-56 - A problem is noted that is said to be rare
Meta-Structure - Relationship Between Passages:
List of Problems (Passage A) - The Author starts the passage out with a statement that a certain practice has problems, and then she goes through a list of those problems. Note that our Key Lines for this list generally featured the first line of each statement, but it didn't always. Being able to identify the "best" line summing up each problem is a key way to be able to really understand these passages!
List of Benefits (Passage B) - In a mirrored structure to Passage A, Passage B notes that the same practice has benefits, and then it goes about listing those benefits. This mirrored structure reflects their opposite opinions of jury nullification.
Which brings us to the relationship between the passages. They both use a similar structure to make opposite arguments. In Passage A, problems with jury nullification are noted. In Passage B, the benefits of jury nullification are described. These problems and benefits aren't perfectly mirrored—Passage B doesn't address each downside in Passage A by suggesting that it's actually a benefit—but they do overlap in discussing the role of the legislature in the criminal justice system.
Last Thoughts:
Since the passages reach different conclusions, we should expect questions about differences between them, and answers that reflect differences. The exception to that is any question about Argument Structure or Methods of Reasoning since the way that they make their arguments is actually quite similar.
Question prompt
The authors 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
-
Aless trusting with regard Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice A is not credited
Incorrect. Passage B is pro-nullification, while Passage A is against it. As such, the Author of Passage B is more trusting of juries, and this answer cuts against that. -
Bless skeptical of the Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice B is not credited
Incorrect. Passage B is pro-nullification, while Passage A is against it. This answer lines up with Passage B's overall attitude compared to Passage A's in that it puts more faith in juries, but Passage B never talks about the ability to understand the laws, so it's out of scope. -
Cmore concerned about the Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice C is not credited
Incorrect. Passage B is pro-nullification, while Passage A is against it. This answer cuts against Passage B's higher level of trust in juries. -
Dmore confident in the Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice D matches the stem
Correct. Question Type:
Author's Attitude
Strategy Overview:
Review what we said about the overall relationship between the passages
Answer Anticipation/Relevant Lines:
In Comparative RC sets, we should always think about the relationship between the two passages after we read them. Here, we said the following during that review:
They both use a similar structure to make opposite arguments. In Passage A, problems with jury nullification are noted. In Passage B, the benefits of jury nullification are described. These problems and benefits aren't perfectly mirrored—Passage B doesn't address each downside in Passage A by suggesting that it's actually a benefit—but they do overlap in discussing the role of the legislature in the criminal justice system.
So there's a big difference in attitude—Passage A thinks that jury nullification is problematic, but Passage B thinks that it provides a number of benefits. However, this question stem is asking about juries, not jury nullification. The two are related, however, in that juries are the ones who are engaged in jury nullification. So extending their opinions about jury nullification, we can say that Passage B's Author trusts juries more than Passage A's Author does. Let's find an answer reflecting that general difference in attitude, using the passage to confirm any answers that we need to.
Answer Explanation:
(Lines 49-53) Passage B is pro-nullification, while Passage A is against it. This answer reflects that in saying that Passage B's Author has more faith that juries will use nullification justly. He even talks about the justness of their decisions in Paragraph 3 of Passage B. This answer is therefore correct.
Key Takeaway:
These Attitude questions usually depend on just identifying the overall opinion of the author towards a given topic. Here, however, two answers reflected that opinion, and we needed to delve into the details. That doesn't change anything about our process, though! You should still spend your time anticipating a general answer based on the overall attitude, and then focus on answers that align with that. If more than one does, only then should you dive into the details. -
Emore disappointed in the Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice E is not credited
Incorrect. Passage B never expresses disappointment in the juries for failing to nullify more.
What this tests
Discussion
No threads yet—be the first to ask a question or share an approach.