Question Type:
Author Opinion
Answer expected in lines/paragraph:
Lines 8-10 are where psg A first establishes an overall negative attitude toward jury nullification. Lines 37, 43, and 50-51 show us that psg B has an overall positive attitude toward jury nullification.
Any prephrase?
The question stem technically asked about "juries", not "jury nullification", but since we're doing comparative reading and both passages dealt with the topic of jury nullification (A - negatively, B - positively) it seems like a reasonable starting point for our prephrase to think that B would be more likely to say "juries DO perform a useful/helpful role when they engage in jury nullification".
Correct answer:
D
Answer choice analysis:
(A) Wrong side of the scale. Less trusting = more negative view of juries.
(B) Maybe. Less skeptical = more positive view of juries. However, it's hard to find specific wording about whether A or B think that juries have the capacity to understand laws. Although A thinks that juries are not the appropriate party to write or interpret laws, A does not object on the basis that juries don't have the capacity to understand the law (rather, A objects on the basis that juries are unaccountable).
(C) Wrong side. More concerned = more negative view.
(D) Yes. More confident = more positive view. This seems to reinforce the main points of both passages. Psg A is concerned about "evil ends" and "the great problems" created by jury nullification. Psg A also seems to think that juries might nullify for capricious reasons, while Psg B makes a case that any time nullification occurs, it must be for a pretty compelling reason if it's resulting in 12 people of very different backgrounds all agreeing to do so.
(E) Wrong side. More disappointed = more negative view.
Takeaway/Pattern: Although this could have been fishing for a more specific detail, the difference tested here is essentially the main relationship between the two passages: Jury Nullification - good or bad?
#officialexplanation