- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8917
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Wed Jan 21, 2015 12:00 am
#73287
Complete Question Explanation
Method of Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (E).
The author argues that jury nullification often leads to serious mistakes due to jurors relying on their perceptions of fairness rather than an objective application of the law to the facts. This is presented as a counter-argument against the position, presented in the second sentence, that jury nullification is legitimate because it helps shield against injustice. We are asked to describe the technique used by the author to support their position - a Method of Reasoning question, in which we must focus not on what the author said, but on how they built their argument.
This author's strategy could be described as "pointing out a problem that the opposition may not have considered." The problem is the high incidence of serious mistakes. Use this idea of "pointing out a problem" to sort losers and contenders.
Answer choice (A): The motives or those who support jury nullification were never made an issue in this argument, only results of the practice itself.
Answer choice (B): When we see the word "inconsistency" in an answer, it means that two statements were made that cannot both be true at the same time. Either two premises were in conflict, or a premise and a conclusion were. Our author never indicated that if the other side believes one thing, they cannot also believe the other, and so no inconsistency was at issue.
Answer choice (C): A very attractive answer choice! It does seem as if the author is saying that the proponents' claim that jury nullification helps shield against injustice is false, but only if you assume that "serious mistakes" means no shield is raised against injustice. Ultimately this answer will prove to be incorrect because while the author's position does seem to weaken this opposing claim, it does not appear that the author was trying to prove that it was completely false. Rather, the author is suggesting that the serious mistakes outweigh any benefits claimed by the proponents. Perhaps jury nullification does sometime help shield against injustice, perhaps in those few cases where they don't make serious mistakes? It would be entirely reasonable to keep this as a contender until something better comes along that matches our prephrase more closely.
Answer choice (D): No counter-example is presented in the stimulus. Whenever you see the words "example" or "counterexample", they must be referring to a specific instance of the thing being discussed. In this stimulus, that might be to name a particular trial in which jury nullification was based on or led to serious mistakes. Examples name specific cases, and in the absence of such specifics an answer like this one must be rejected.
Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. Here we have something akin to "pointing out a problem," which is a good match for our prephrase and a better choice than answer C, attractive as that one may have been. The author's concern about "serious mistakes" is accurately described as "undesirable consequences."
Method of Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (E).
The author argues that jury nullification often leads to serious mistakes due to jurors relying on their perceptions of fairness rather than an objective application of the law to the facts. This is presented as a counter-argument against the position, presented in the second sentence, that jury nullification is legitimate because it helps shield against injustice. We are asked to describe the technique used by the author to support their position - a Method of Reasoning question, in which we must focus not on what the author said, but on how they built their argument.
This author's strategy could be described as "pointing out a problem that the opposition may not have considered." The problem is the high incidence of serious mistakes. Use this idea of "pointing out a problem" to sort losers and contenders.
Answer choice (A): The motives or those who support jury nullification were never made an issue in this argument, only results of the practice itself.
Answer choice (B): When we see the word "inconsistency" in an answer, it means that two statements were made that cannot both be true at the same time. Either two premises were in conflict, or a premise and a conclusion were. Our author never indicated that if the other side believes one thing, they cannot also believe the other, and so no inconsistency was at issue.
Answer choice (C): A very attractive answer choice! It does seem as if the author is saying that the proponents' claim that jury nullification helps shield against injustice is false, but only if you assume that "serious mistakes" means no shield is raised against injustice. Ultimately this answer will prove to be incorrect because while the author's position does seem to weaken this opposing claim, it does not appear that the author was trying to prove that it was completely false. Rather, the author is suggesting that the serious mistakes outweigh any benefits claimed by the proponents. Perhaps jury nullification does sometime help shield against injustice, perhaps in those few cases where they don't make serious mistakes? It would be entirely reasonable to keep this as a contender until something better comes along that matches our prephrase more closely.
Answer choice (D): No counter-example is presented in the stimulus. Whenever you see the words "example" or "counterexample", they must be referring to a specific instance of the thing being discussed. In this stimulus, that might be to name a particular trial in which jury nullification was based on or led to serious mistakes. Examples name specific cases, and in the absence of such specifics an answer like this one must be rejected.
Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. Here we have something akin to "pointing out a problem," which is a good match for our prephrase and a better choice than answer C, attractive as that one may have been. The author's concern about "serious mistakes" is accurately described as "undesirable consequences."
