PrepTest 142, Section 4, Question 17
Under the legal doctrine of jury nullification, a(60 more words not shown)
The argument uses which one(20 more words not shown)
- Aattacking the motives(6 more words not shown)
- Bidentifying an inconsistency(8 more words not shown)
- Cattempting to show(12 more words not shown)
- Dpresenting a purported(10 more words not shown)
- Earguing that the(7 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Imagine a law imposing ten years in prison for a minor speeding violation. A jury might believe the driver violated the law but refuse to convict because it considers the law unjust. That's a hypothetical illustration of the protection the proponents have in mind.
The author worries about relying on jurors to judge unfairness objectively. What if they make serious mistakes when deciding which laws deserve to be set aside? The objection concerns what happens when juries use the power, rather than the proponents' intentions.
What we’re looking for
We might still ask how serious those mistakes are. In the situation described, the power is to acquit someone, and we might weigh a mistaken acquittal differently from a mistaken conviction. But that's a question about whether the objection persuades us. The method question asks what objection the author makes: giving jurors this power too often produces serious errors.
Working the answers
- A
The author doesn't accuse proponents of secretly wanting some improper result. Their stated aim of shielding against injustice can be sincere even if the doctrine works badly. The criticism concerns consequences of the practice, not the motives of its supporters.
- B
An inconsistency would require positions that can't both be true. The author doesn't identify two incompatible commitments in the proponents' reasoning. It points to mistakes under the policy, which could coexist with the policy sometimes protecting people from injustice.
- C
The proponents' stated reason is that nullification helps shield against injustice. The response doesn't show that it never does so. It argues that relying on jurors creates another problem: serious mistakes. A policy can have the claimed benefit and also have undesirable consequences, so C doesn't best describe this response.
- D
The author doesn't present a particular case meant to disprove a general claim. We aren't shown a specific defendant or verdict as a counterexample. Instead, the author makes a general claim about how often juries make serious mistakes when exercising this power.
- ECorrect
Serious mistakes are the undesirable consequences. The author uses them to challenge the legitimacy of a practice proponents defend as protection against injustice. We don't have to agree about the proper balance of benefits and risks to recognize that consequence-based criticism.
More Strategy of Argument questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strategy of Argument questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.