PrepTest 113, Section 1, Question 6
The jury trial is one of the handful(440 more words not shown)
The author explicitly claims that(18 more words not shown)
- AOnly verdicts in(6 more words not shown)
- BThe responsibility felt(11 more words not shown)
- CSociety's confidence in(8 more words not shown)
- DThe problem of(11 more words not shown)
- EAn important flaw(9 more words not shown)
Reading the passage
Follow the sentence about dismissing dissent. First, we lose a necessary part of deliberation: every opinion getting a fair hearing. Then the ending names the wider consequence: society loses confidence that the verdict is proper.
What we’re looking for
This question asks for an explicit claim. A result we could plausibly predict is not enough when a different answer gives the stated consequence.
Working the answers
- A
The writer doesn't limit the effects to very close cases. That description helps explain hung juries earlier, but it isn't a restriction on this claim about dismissing dissent.
- B
Hearing someone out can show respect, so this is tempting. But it says jurors would feel less responsibility to respect each other. The writer describes a lost hearing, not a change in the jurors' sense of obligation. That extra psychological claim isn't stated.
- CCorrect
The ending explicitly says the public would lose trust in the verdict’s correctness (paragraph 3). That's the public consequence we identified: failing to hear everyone damages trust in the result.
- D
Reducing deadlocks is the kind of benefit the critics want. But the writer doesn't explicitly predict here that hung juries would persist at a lower frequency. Even if that sounds plausible, it doesn't answer this particular question as directly as C.
- E
This reverses the evaluation. Dismissing dissent loses an important protection; it doesn't remove an important flaw.
More Detail questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Detail questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.