PrepTest 153
[lcid:3708] Prep Test 153 LSAT — Reading Comp — S1
Reading comp
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 would be
Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right
Credited answer: E
The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.
Question Type
Legal
Answer choices
-
AIt encourages unacceptably harsh Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice A is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 49-52) The closest the passage gets to discussing this is in Paragraph 4. There, the Author notes a study that looked at people who confessed based on threats of harsh treatment. That was about the defendant confessing, though, not cooperating witness testimony, so this answer is incorrect. -
BIt fails to recognize Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice B is not credited
Incorrect. The passage never talks about retaliation between defendants and cooperating witnesses. -
CIt frequently places an Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice C is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 35-37; Lines 54-56) While the passage does suggest that jurors weigh this testimony too strongly, there are two issues with this answer. First, the studies noted talked about direct confessions, not cooperating witness testimony. Second, there's no indication that the jurors are put in an unfair position—if anything, it seems as if the defendants are the ones who might be treated unfairly! -
DIt is justified only Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice D is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 25-26) The Author is much more negative on the practice and doesn't carve out any exceptions for when it's acceptable. -
EIt likely leads to Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice E matches the stem
Correct.Question Type:
Must Be True
Strategy Overview:
Review the Author's opinion on the topic and then use that plus our notes and the passage itself to find the correct answer
Answer Anticipation/Relevant Lines:
The Author talks about this testimony throughout, although the last two paragraphs are largely about direct confessions, so we should focus on the first three paragraphs.
There, the Author says that such testimony is often brought about by incentives (Lines 11-13), and these incentives themselves incentivize people to lie (Lines 13-15). Such lies are rarely prosecuted (Lines 16-18), and cross-examination (and similar safeguards) aren't enough to protect someone from being convicted based on this false testimony (Lines 25-26).
Let's find an answer reflecting this view overall, or any of these specific details.
Answer Explanation:
(Lines 11-15) The Author notes that such testimony is incentivized with reduced sentences, including for jailhouse informants who would be convicted criminals, and that these incentives are ""highly conducive"" to false testimony. As such, it's likely that at least a few convicted jailhouse informants have lied and still received a reduced sentence, backing up this answer. Note that this answer brings up something bad that could result from cooperating witness testimony, and that lines up with the Author's overall view of the practice.
Key Takeaway:
Even detail-based correct answers tend to reflect the main point of the passage! Keep the big picture in mind even when analyzing details.
What this tests
Discussion
-
Answer C 0 replies
Started by Jasmin1
-
Please explain 1 reply
Started by sprozes