PrepTest 158, Section 4, Question 16
Journalist: When judges do not maintain strict control(47 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(7 more words not shown)
- ACourt proceedings overseen(18 more words not shown)
- BLawyers tend to(17 more words not shown)
- CPeople who are(20 more words not shown)
- DObstructive courtroom behavior(16 more words not shown)
- EThe selection of(17 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A lawyer trying to derail a trial doesn't mean the attempt succeeds.
The journalist says badgering witnesses and using inflammatory language hinder the jury. But how much? A hindrance isn't a guarantee of a bad verdict. If it changed the outcome in only a tiny fraction of cases, that would matter to how readily we should doubt a verdict just because the behavior occurred.
I'd also keep an eye on the shift from judges losing control to lawyers engaging in the behavior. A lawyer could start badgering a witness and then be stopped by the judge. The judge might correct the problem rather than allow it to dominate the trial.
What we’re looking for
For the weaken question, my initial prediction is evidence that judges can deal with these tactics. We need a reason the misconduct doesn't justify the journalist's blanket doubt whenever it occurs. An answer could also help by showing some other reason the tactics fail.
Working the answers
- A
Strictly controlled trials sometimes producing wrong verdicts doesn't tell us that misconduct is ineffective in the trials we're discussing. There could be other reasons for those errors. This doesn't undermine the journalist's concern about the effect of obstructive behavior.
- B
How much lawyers care about just outcomes doesn't settle whether they can sway jurors with these tactics. A lawyer could care very little and still fail to influence the result. We need evidence about the verdict, not a comparison of motives.
- C
Whether people later admit being influenced is different from whether the influence occurred. Jurors could deny it regardless of the actual effect. The journalist's conclusion isn't based on interviews in which jurors confess how they reached their decisions.
- DCorrect
This gives us a different reason the tactics may fail: legitimate evidence. When jurors have real evidence before them, obstructive behavior seldom works. That makes the mere occurrence of the behavior a poor basis for automatically doubting the verdict.
We can accept that the tactics create a hindrance without assuming they commonly overcome the evidence. D doesn't guarantee a correct verdict, and it doesn't say the behavior never works. Its claim that the behavior seldom succeeds in these circumstances is enough to weaken the journalist's general conclusion.
- E
Selecting jurors partly for an apparent lack of bias doesn't establish how they respond to inflammatory language or badgering during trial. People can begin without a bias and still be influenced later. E doesn't connect the selection process to the effectiveness of the tactics.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.