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

According to the third 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

  1. A
    current safeguards are designed Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited
    Incorrect. (Lines 23-25) If anything, the description of the safeguards suggests that the witnesses would come under scrutiny, not have their rights protected.
  2. B
    current safeguards fail to Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    Incorrect. (Lines 23-25) It's noted that the safeguards allow for cross-examination that would lead the jury to consider the motives of the witnesses, and they were put in place to protect defendants against ""false testimony,"" so they don't fail to recognize that these witnesses might lie.
  3. C
    juries may not be Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C matches the stem
    Correct. Question Type:
    Must Be True

    Strategy Overview:
    Head to the relevant section of the passage and find the answer

    Answer Anticipation/Relevant Lines:
    Heading back to Paragraph 3, we can see that the Author pivots (""However"") in Line 25 away from the argument that the safeguards are sufficient to prevent false testimony from leading to a conviction. Why? Because ""[t]here are cases"" where the prosecution ""impl[ies]"" a benefit for testifying instead of straight up promising something, and in those cases, the exchange isn't disclosed to the jurors. Let's find an answer stating that sometimes the jury doesn't even know that the cooperating witness will receive a benefit to testifying!

    Answer Explanation:
    (Lines 29-31) The Author notes that there are cases where an implied benefit wouldn't need to be disclosed to the jury, thus backing up this answer.

    Key Takeaway:
    When a question directs you to a specific place in the passage (""According to the third paragraph""), don't start trying to find information in separate sections to back up answers! That wouldn't address the question stem.
  4. D
    jurors tend to view Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited
    Incorrect. The paragraph in question doesn't discuss the reliability of witnesses versus the reliability of the defendant, so this answer is incorrect.
  5. E
    prosecutors are typically not Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited
    Incorrect. While the passage does suggest that, as a common practice, prosecutors don't face penalties for doing it, that's not suggested as a reason for the safeguards failing to provide protection.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion