PrepTest 158

This has no effect on the journalist's argument. The journalist's conclusion doesn't say or imply that the verdicts reached in cases where judges maintain close control over the courtroom are always reliable. The conclusion instead addresses verdicts in cases where lawyers use inflammatory language and badger witnesses, which sometimes occurs when judges don't control their courtrooms.

If lawyers are less concerned about the trustworthiness of verdits, they may be willing to engage in a level of obstructive behaviors that truly undermine the jury's effort to reach the correct verdict. Suppose lawyers are eager to use super inflammatory language and to really badger witnesses (instead of using these techniques sparingly to preserve the trustworthiness of the legal process). In that case, jurors will find it harder to reach valid conclusions. This gives us further reason to doubt jury verdicts when such techniques are used, slightly strengthening the journalists' argument.

This answer choice is irrelevant to the journalist's argument. It doesn't matter whether the jurors influenced by the inflammatory language will admit that they were influenced by it. They don't even have to be aware that they were influenced! To draw this conclusion, the journalist just has to establish that such language always influences jurors' decision-making enough to make their verdicts untrustworthy. (C) doesn't weaken the notion that inflammatory language always makes jurors' verdicts untrustworthy, so it is incorrect.

Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Weaken

Passage Summary:
If a judge doesn't control the courtroom, lawyers try to influence the jury by speaking provocatively and argumentatively. If lawyers speak provocatively and argumentatively, the jury has trouble reaching the correct verdict. Therefore, if lawyers speak provocatively and argumentatively, we can reasonably doubt the verdict reached.

Strategy Overview:

1. Argument or facts? Always argument, so identify premises and conclusions of argument
2. Anticipate why the premises are not enough to show that the conclusion is true
1. Causal argument? Look for answer choice that:
1. Shows possible alternate cause
2. Shows cause without effect
3. Shows effect without cause
4. Shows the cause and effect are reversed
2. If not causal argument, anticipate ways to worsen problem with argument
3. Use anticipations to select the answer choice that, if true, would weaken argument

Answer Anticipation:
Our ultimate goal is to find the answer choice that weakens the argument. However, it's much easier to do that if we first break down the argument and identify its flaws. Then, weakening the argument is only a matter of finding the answer choice that exploits that flaw.

After breaking down this argument, an experienced test-taker will immediately note that this conclusion makes a bold, universal claim — it's reasonable to doubt verdicts lawyers use inflammatory language and badger witnesses. Are we sure about that? After all, the premises only establish that using inflammatory language and badgering witnesses "hinders" juries' efforts to reach the correct verdict. That doesn't mean they can't reach the correct verdict. Sure, it makes it harder for them to reach the correct verdict. But that doesn't mean they can't put these lawyers' shenanigans aside and allow reason to prevail. So, this argument is flawed because the evidence doesn't establish that inflammatory language and badgering witnesses always influence juries' verdicts.

When an argument on a Weaken question reaches a universal conclusion that's bolder than the premises, the correct answer will likely exploit that flaw by presenting counterexamples. In this case, a counterexample will be a situation in which lawyers use inflammatory language and badger witnesses but do not meaningfully influence a jury's verdict. In those cases, we'd be able to trust the jury's verdict, undermining this journalist's bold conclusion.

Answer Choice Explanation:
This definitely weakens the journalist's argument. As we anticipated, it presents a counterexample to the conclusion's bold, universal claim: it shows a situation in which lawyers use inflammatory language and badger witnesses but do not meaningfully influence a jury's verdict. If "[o]bstructive courtroom behavior" like inflammatory language and witness badgering isn't effective in cases with legitimate witnesses, it's not necessarily true that it's reasonable to doubt verdicts "whenever lawyers engage in such behavior." Therefore, (D) makes the journalist's conclusion less convincing, making it the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
On a question from the Analyzing Flaws family of LR questions, pay attention to how bold the language is in the conclusion. When a Weaken question's conclusion makes a universal claim bolder than the evidence, the correct answer will usually present a counterexample to the conclusion.

This answer choice is irrelevant to the journalist's argument. The journalist doesn't argue that we can doubt juries' verdicts because the jurors are biased. The journalist argues that we doubt the verdicts because the jurors are susceptible to lawyers' inflammatory language and witness badgering. An unbiased juror can still be influenced by the lawyers' obstructive behavior.