PrepTest 133, Section 2, Question 25
In ancient Greece, court witnesses were not cross-examined(55 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(7 more words not shown)
- ALitigants believed jurors(12 more words not shown)
- BLitigants believed jurors(23 more words not shown)
- CLitigants believed jurors(15 more words not shown)
- DLitigants believed jurors(16 more words not shown)
- ELitigants believed jurors(14 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Making a good impression isn't automatically the same as appealing to someone's moral beliefs.
The passage tells us that courtroom impressions mattered. With no cross-examination of witnesses and no legal guidance for jurors, litigants had a strong reason to win the jury over. But what did they say to do that? An entertaining speech or a likable personality could make an impression without revealing the audience's beliefs about right and wrong.
That's the jump to question. The author moves from speeches designed to impress citizen jurors to speeches being a good source of evidence about citizens' moral views. To strengthen the argument, connect those two ideas. I'd want to know that litigants thought appealing to the jurors' moral beliefs would help win their approval.
What we’re looking for
Then the content of the speeches would have a reason to reflect the values of the people listening. Without that connection, we know the speakers wanted to impress the jury, but not what kind of impression they were trying to make.
Working the answers
- A
A preference for someone's personality doesn't establish a preference for that person's moral code. A charming speaker might appeal through humor or confidence. That could make the speeches useful evidence about effective presentation, but it doesn't connect them to the common moral beliefs named in the conclusion.
- B
Closer scrutiny of a litigant's personal moral code doesn't tell us which moral code would impress the jurors. The comparison is between jurors and nonjurors as examiners, not between a speaker's expressed values and the audience's values. B raises the importance of scrutiny without establishing why courtroom speeches would reflect ordinary citizens' beliefs.
- CCorrect
The litigants thought jurors would be impressed by a professed moral code resembling their own. Since the speakers wanted to make a good impression, they had a reason to present values they believed matched the jurors' values. The jury came from the citizenry, so those appeals become useful evidence about common moral conceptions.
The speakers needn't have sincerely held every belief they expressed. Even a calculated attempt to sound morally agreeable can reveal what the speaker thought the audience would approve of. That is why the speeches could be informative despite their persuasive purpose.
- D
Sharing an economic class isn't the same as sharing moral beliefs. A strategy built around appearing to have the jurors' financial background wouldn't by itself make the speeches evidence of their views about right and wrong. D connects impressions to class rather than the subject of the conclusion.
- E
Knowledge of the law and beliefs about morality aren't interchangeable. If litigants expected jurors to decide based on legal understanding, that still wouldn't explain why their speeches would reflect common moral views. We need the link to those views that C supplies.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.