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 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 2
  • 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 3
  • 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 4
  • 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 5
  • 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
Passage B
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 2
  • 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 3
  • 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 4
  • 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
Main Point:
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

  1. A
    juries should be more Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited
    Incorrect. (Lines 12-14; Lines 41-43; Lines 50-53) The Author of Passage A bases one problem with nullification in that juries don't release their reasoning, so she would arguably agree with this answer. The Author of Passage B says that a benefit of nullification is that it sends a message to legislatures about what laws are just and what exceptions should exist. If anything, these benefits would be stronger if the juries gave their reasoning. While both of these opinions require a bit of a leap, this appears to be something over which the two authors would be more likely to agree than disagree.
  2. B
    laws are subject to Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    Incorrect. (Lines 29-30; Lines 57-61) Passage A says that reasonable people can disagree on the proper reach of criminal laws, so she agrees with this answer at least as far as criminal law is concerned. Passage B ends by saying that nullification is the result of people with different opinions all agreeing that the case is particularly compelling, which suggests that there are reasonable different views on the law that sometimes align. Similar to (A), finding opinions from both authors on this answer requires a bit of a jump, but even then, they're more aligned than in disagreement.
  3. C
    it is likely that Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    Incorrect. (Lines 23-28; Lines 41-54) Passage A discusses legislators compared to jurors, but it doesn't discuss their biases. Rather, it discusses that one is elected and another isn't. Similarly, Passage B discusses legislatures, but it doesn't say anything about biases. As such, this answer is out of scope.
  4. D
    it is within the Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D matches the stem
    Correct. Question Type:
    Point at Issue

    Strategy Overview:
    Review what we said about the relationships between the passages

    Answer Anticipation/Relevant Lines:
    After reading the passages, we said the following about their relationship:

    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, at the highest level, the two authors disagree on whether jury nullification is problematic or beneficial. Let's focus on answers that line up with that, and then use our notes and the passages to work through any details.

    Answer Explanation:
    (Lines 23-25; Lines 41-48) Passage A says that it's the job of judges to interpret the law, contrasting them with jurors. So the Author of Passage A disagrees with this answer—it's not within the purview of jurors to interpret the law. Passage B, on the other hand, says that legislatures necessarily pass laws that are general and broad, and that it's a benefit of jury nullification that jurors can then look at how these laws apply in a given case. So the Author of Passage B does believe it's within the purview of jurors to interpret broad and general laws to determine how they apply in given cases. Since the two authors have different opinions on this answer, it's correct.

    Key Takeaway:
    In Point at Issue questions in Comparative RC, always start with the big picture. If the two passages largely disagree, use that big picture disagreement to guide your approach to the answers. If the two passages largely agree, then you know you'll have to identify a detail over which they disagree.
  5. E
    police and prosecutors should Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited
    Incorrect. (Lines 33-36) Passage A is silent on this topic, so this answer is out of scope. Passage B does discuss such discretion, and it notes that the discretion sometimes allows for "overzealous" prosecution. However, that doesn't mean the Author of Passage B believes they should have less discretion—he believes nullification addresses this problem, so he might believe that they could keep their discretion as long as nullification is allowed. We can't determine the Author of Passage B's opinion on this answer, either, making it completely out of scope.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion