PrepTest 113, Section 1, Question 3

Working the answers

• A
  Correct

  “Strong measures” might initially seem stronger than our wording. But requiring every juror's agreement is demanding: eleven votes aren't enough if the twelfth person still dissents. The writer defends that protection because unjust verdicts are a serious risk. The claims that unanimity offers a “better chance” of fairness and that removing it increases opportunities for mistakes support this principle.

• B

  Fairness fits, but the proposed response shifts to judges being extremely thorough. This paragraph's safeguard is preserving jurors' voices through unanimity. It doesn't give judges that instruction.

• C

  Reducing a risk isn't eliminating it. Innocent people are already sometimes convicted while the requirement exists. Nothing promises that careful adherence will eventually produce a system with no unjust verdicts.

• D

  The example of presuming guilt makes this tempting. But a mistaken assumption doesn't by itself establish that the person is failing to take the job responsibly. The paragraph emphasizes protection against injustice and the need to hear dissent, rather than grounding its argument in a claim about irresponsible jurors.

• E

  Existing mistakes don't establish that unfairness can never be eliminated. The writer recommends a safeguard that improves the odds of fairness; this answer adds a broader claim about the system's unavoidable limitations.