#5 - Concept Reference, Weaken, Author's Perspective

[Administrator]

Please post below with any questions!

[mokkyukkyu]

Hi,

Is D wrong because of "expertise"?
Is E correct because of the 3rd paragraph?

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi mokkyukkyu,

Thanks for your question!

To help you figure out where you went wrong here, please provide a detailed breakdown of how you understood the question you’re asking about. Since you’re asking about a Reading Comprehension question, we expect to see evidence that you were able to do the following:

• Correctly identify the type of question in the stem.
• If the stem refers to a specific concept in the passage, identify where in the passage this concept was discussed.
• If the stem allows for a paraphrasable answer, tell us what it was. (Don't be afraid if your prephrase was off).
• Assuming this is a Must Be True question, as most RC questions are, tell us what textual evidence you have supporting your choice of (incorrect) answer.
• Explain why you believe the correct answer choice is not supported by the passage.

The more you tell us about your method of approach, the better we can help you figure it out.

Thanks!

[TigerJin]

I was caught between d and E. I chose D, thinking that it was repeating A's views in paragraph 4. The jury is unelected and unaccountable, so they don't know the law, too, A seems to prefer the expertise of the prosecutors and judges. I am not sure how to justify, E. perhaps in the third paragraph, where it is stated that the jury does not know the past history of the defendant? But then, to, me, that is more support for D.

[Jonathan Evans]

TigerJin,

You need to focus on the question itself here and the topic that it considers, namely how would the author of Passage A object to Passage B's contention that jury nullification could serve as a safety valve in the event that the jury deems the case too trivial to warrant a conviction?

This question is analogous to a Logical Reasoning question, in fact a rather interesting combination of a Weaken and a Method of Reasoning question. You are to hurt the claim in Passage B that jury nullification could serve as a safety valve in the event that the jury deems the case too trivial. You are to do so by finding reasoning in Passage A that would undermine the utility of jury nullification in this case.

Start by being completely clear about the claim: Jury nullification could serve as a safety valve in the event that the jury deems the case too trivial.

Now you have to find some aspect of the first passage that could give you a reason why a jury might be ill-equipped to judge whether a case is in fact trivial.

For example, in lines 26-28, you find one possible reason, that juries may not be capable of judging the effects that a non-conviction could have on others.

Consider the answer choices you have suggested. Answer choice (D) suggests that juries may not be able to judge the strengths or weaknesses of a case. There is no evidence in Passage A to suggest anything about this ability of juries as germane to using this skill wisely. However, answer choice (E) describes a scenario outlined in lines 17-20 of Passage A, that juries may not be aware of the circumstances that led to the case's prosecution in the first place, considerations that may make the particular case appear inconsequential, but not so in light of the overarching circumstances of which the jury is not aware.

[TigerJin]

Okay, I got. It looks like I had the right method for solving it, but attributed the part I found to an answer choice that did not describe what I found. Where as, the correct answer's source, I did not see.