PrepTest 113

Topic: Legal

Paragraph 1

• Paragraph note
  • Author on unanimity requirement in jury trials (crucial component that spurs full deliberation) and critics' view on requirement (too costly, should be reduced)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Author's view:
    • The unanimity requirement is a crucial component of jury trials that compels the jury to engage in full and true deliberation before reaching a verdict (second and fourth sentences)
  • Critics' view:
    • The unanimity requirement is too costly and sometimes results in retrials; the requirement should be lowered to allow for one or two dissenting jurors (fifth and last sentences)
  • Cause-and-effect relationship, according to the author:
    • The unanimity requirement causes juries' deliberation to be full and true (fourth sentence)
  • Cause-and-effect relationship, according to the critics:
    • The unanimity requirement causes the deliberation process to take longer and sometimes causes retrials (fifth sentence)
  • Author's attitude: "important" (first sentence), "crucial component" (second sentence), "fully and truly" (fourth sentence)

Paragraph 2

• Paragraph note
  • Author's rebuttal of criticism (only a small fraction of cases end in hung juries; hung juries are evidence that jurors are doing their job)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Author's view:
    • The costs of hung juries don't outweigh the benefits of the unanimity requirement (first sentence)
  • Comparisons, according to the author:
    • The vast majority of cases don't make it to trial; the vast majority of cases that make it to trial don't result in a hung jury (second and third sentences)
    • Hung juries are better evidence of a jury doing its job when the case is close than evidence of a flaw in the criminal justice system (fourth and last sentences)
  • Author's opinion: "do not warrant losing the benefit to society" (first sentence), "vast majority" (second sentence), "small fraction" (third sentence), "does not demonstrate a flaw" (fourth sentence), "rather suggests" (fourth sentence), "certainly preferable to an unjust verdict" (last sentence)

Paragraph 3

• Paragraph note
  • More rebuttal (promotes fairness, reduces likelihood that innocent people are convicted, values each juror's opinion)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Author's view:
    • The unanimity requirement promotes fair outcomes, reduces the likelihood of innocent convictions, and allows each juror's opinions to be heard and carry weight (first through last sentences)
  • Comparisons, according to the author:
    • The unanimity requirement provides a better chance that a trial and verdict will be fair (first sentence)
    • Eliminating the unanimity requirement would make it more likely that innocent people are convicted (third sentence)
  • Author's opinion: "provides a better chance" (first sentence), "fair" (first sentence), "would only increase the opportunity for such mistakes" (second sentence), "important and necessary" (third sentence), "effective deliberation requires" (third sentence), "would be undermined" (last sentence),

Main Point: Even though hung juries are costly, the benefits vastly outweigh the cost.

Rebutting Critics: We think the Rebutting Critics Meta-Structure best fits this passage's structure.* In a Rebutting Critics passage, the author presents criticisms of the subject matter, before mounting a defense against those critiques. This pattern matches the argument structure of the passage perfectly.

In the first paragraph, the passage introduces us to an important aspect of jury trials: the requirement that a jury's decision be unanimous. There are some critics, however, who think that this requirement is a "costly relic" (P1, S5) and that allowing a couple of dissenters would keep trials from being dragged out by hung (undecided) juries. In the next two paragraphs, the author defends the unanimity requirement. The author argues that that hung juries are infrequent and that when they do occur, they happen for good reason. Since a unanimous verdict is such a powerful tool for preventing injustice in the legal system, it is well worth any resulting inefficiencies.

The main point of a Rebutting Critics passage will be the author's central defense. To anticipate this main point, we can look for whether the author provides a conclusion that summarizes their defense. At the beginning of the second paragraph, the author offers a statement summarizing their defense. It reads, "the material costs of hung juries do not warrant losing the benefit to society of the unanimous verdict" (P2, S1). Therefore, we can anticipate a main point that looks very similar. Something like "Even though hung juries are costly, the benefits vastly outweigh the cost."

*Since the author disagrees with the critics' viewpoint, you might see this as a Criticizing a Viewpoint passage. There is considerable overlap between these types of Meta-Structures, and classifying the passage this way would still help you reach a solid understanding of the argument.

There's plenty of author's attitude here. Tracking the author's attitude is one of our primary jobs as we read Reading Comprehension passages. Doing so will help us understand the Meta-Structure and the main point and even predict where the author's argument will go. This author is emphatically supportive of the unanimity requirement, and we can be certain of encountering some questions about this.