Q17 - Under the legal doctrine of jury nullification....

[dhlim3]

I was able to bring the answer choices down to B and E, and ended up picking B simply because it sounded "more correct" than E and I can't seem to pinpoint what makes B the wrong answer of the two.

Someone break this down for me?

[asafezrati]

I got this one wrong, but I'll try to explain it.

The doctrine of jury nullification is basically: Jury-Believes-Law-Unjust (JB) -> Legitimately-Acquite-Violator (AV)
The proponents' argument is: Premise: this helps shield injustice. Conclusion: The doctrine is legit.
"But"
The doctrine needs the jury to be objective.
The doctrine allows them to acquit on the grounds of their perception of unfairness (that's subjective, not objective).
They often make many mistakes.

The speaker's argument ends with "they make mistakes". This can be paralleled to "undesirable consequences" in E.

B mentions an inconsistency in the proponents' argument. What is the inconsistency? Which ideas contradict one another? This doesn't happen. There might be a clash between the proponents' argument and the other ideas the speaker brings up (namely the doctrine's reliance on objectivity), but this isn't "within the reasoning used to support the position" (the proponents').

The other answer choices:
A. No motive is mentioned in the stimulus.
C. The only premise in the proponents' argument is "helps shield against injustice." The stimulus doesn't show it to be false. The doctrine might help promoting justice (very weak statement) even if there are some very bad consequences. I chose this one because I mixed up what the speaker said and what the proponents' included in their argument.
D. I don't think that "serious mistakes" can be considered to be a counterexample. If the consequences can be considered to be a counterexample, what is the general claim that it contradicts?

[ohthatpatrick]

Awesome response! I'll put a quick official one up here, but it will be largely redundant.

Question type: Describe (Technique)

Task: Pick whichever answer choice is true, i.e. whichever one you can match up with the argument.

ARGUMENT CORE

conclusion
Jury Nullif relies excessively on jurors' objectivity

(why? because ....)
evidence
When juries are allowed to acquit based on their perception of fairness, they too often make serious mistakes.

ANSWER CHOICES

(A) The premise is about juries, not about attacking motives of proponents.

(B) 'inconsistency' = contradiction ... the author does not argue that proponents contradict themselves

(C) would this ever happen on LSAT? Our author's premise doesn't even address the proponents premise (about shielding against injustice)

(D) The general claim made by proponents is "Jury Nullif. helps shield against injustice". A counterexample would be a specific instance in which jury nullification did not shield against injustice. We don't get a counterexample or anything so pointed at the claim of 'shielding against injustice'.

(E) "application of the doctrine" = when juries are empowered to acquit on grounds of perceived unfairness
"undesirable consequences" = they too often make serious mistakes

Hope this helps.

[ViolaL942]

I'm a bit confused with C... Although I think E can be right.
The author points out that the jury makes too many mistakes when deciding whether to acquit, so I think therefore the jury cannot help to shield from injustice, which means the premise of the proponents is false. For this reason, I chose C.
Can anyone tell me what's wrong with my understanding? Thanks very much!!!