PrepTest 136, Section 2, Question 3
Lawyer: Juries are traditionally given their instructions in(68 more words not shown)
Each of the following, if(6 more words not shown)
- AMost jurors are(18 more words not shown)
- BMost jurors do(17 more words not shown)
- CJury instructions formulated(13 more words not shown)
- DThe details of(16 more words not shown)
- EJurors do not(19 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Precise instructions aren't much help if the jury can't understand them. Even the word “verbiage” illustrates the problem. It means wording, but a reader who doesn't know the word might miss the point of the sentence. Technical language can be exact and still fail to communicate. I can see why the lawyer wants instructions that jurors can actually use.
What might we lose by simplifying them, though? Suppose the simpler version leaves out an important part of the jurors' job. Understanding those instructions perfectly wouldn't fix the omission. The lawyer needs the simpler instructions to provide an adequate understanding, even if they don't specify every detail.
What we’re looking for
This is a strengthen question with an exception: four answers help the recommendation, and one doesn't. Facts showing that complicated instructions confuse jurors or that simple instructions do the job would help. A fact about what simplification loses might not. The exception doesn't have to disprove the recommendation; failing to strengthen it is enough.
Working the answers
- A
This supports using simpler language. Most jurors are more likely to understand it than the convoluted alternative. That gives the lawyer a reason to expect the proposed change to improve comprehension, so it is one of the four answers we eliminate.
- B
This identifies a real failure of the current approach. Most jurors finish the complicated instructions without adequately understanding their role. The lawyer's concern is no longer just that technical wording could be confusing; B tells us it actually leaves most jurors without the understanding they need.
- C
This addresses the worry about oversimplifying. Simple instructions can adequately describe the jurors' role. We can therefore pursue easier comprehension without necessarily leaving jurors with an inadequate account of their job. That supports the recommendation.
- DCorrect
This tells us a limitation of simple language: it cannot specify every detail with complete precision. It gives us no new reason to prefer simple instructions. Be careful, though: losing complete precision doesn't necessarily make the instructions inadequate. The lawyer already gives adequate understanding priority over precise detail. D needn't overturn that judgment to be the answer; it simply doesn't strengthen it.
- E
Jurors can understand their role adequately without knowing its precise details. That supports the tradeoff the lawyer proposes. It explains why giving up some detail needn't sacrifice the understanding that matters most for the recommendation.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.