RC Drill Set 4, Question 7
This passage is adapted from a book published(425 more words not shown)
It can be inferred from(15 more words not shown)
- AThe needed testimony(30 more words not shown)
- BA local court(25 more words not shown)
- CA local court(24 more words not shown)
- DA witness in(32 more words not shown)
- EA local court(27 more words not shown)
Reading the passage
Answer from Brakel's position, not the writer's. He wants witnesses in court because he thinks the setting reinforces truthfulness and gives jurors the full range of behavioral cues. I'd look for a policy favoring live testimony; convenience alone doesn't address his objections to video.
Working the answers
- A
Saving travel costs doesn't solve Brakel's concerns about reliability and missing cues. This offers convenience as a reason to use the method he objects to.
- B
Making everyone's testimony a video doesn't restore the cues or courtroom setting he values. Uniformity isn't his proposed solution.
- C
Written testimony also loses the tone and visible behavior he considers important. He wouldn't be led by this argument to let witnesses freely choose it instead of appearing.
- D
This compares video with writing when medical reasons already rule out a live appearance. Brakel's criticism of video doesn't tell us which of those substitutes he would prefer. His clearly stated preference is live courtroom testimony.
- ECorrect
A policy requiring live testimony, except when sufficient medical reasons excuse an appearance, best fits his position. It normally gives witnesses the courtroom setting and jurors the fuller cues that he values. We don't need evidence that he rejects every conceivable exception.
More Detail questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Detail questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.