- Wed May 08, 2019 4:36 pm
Sure thing, oli! First let's dispense with answer B - it's wrong because it is about what judges must do, and the third paragraph of the passage has nothing to do with judges and everything to do with jurors.
So, why A? The author says that unanimity does a better job of making sure verdicts are fair. To illustrate that, she tells us that eliminating unanimity increases the chance of innocent people being convicted. So, one of the reasons the author favors keeping the unanimity requirement is that it helps reduce the chance of an unjust verdict, the conviction of an innocent person. Unanimity might be a high standard, as discussed earlier in the passage, but the author thinks it's worth it to set the bar that high in order to reduce the chances of that unjust verdict. That's the principle described in answer A!
Adam M. Tyson
PowerScore LSAT, GRE, ACT and SAT Instructor
Follow me on Twitter at https://twitter.com/LSATadam