Q28

[tamwaiman]

L35 -
Such was the argument underlying the exclusions of interested-party testimony and hearsay evidence. Bentham argued that the character of evidence should be weighed by the jury: the alternative was to prefer ignorance to knowledge.

I don't get the meaning of the last sentence and why (D) is right.
Can someone please help me?
Thanks.

[giladedelman]

Thanks for the question.

According to the passage, Bentham's radical idea was to include almost all relevant evidence in a trial, with "narrow exceptions." The fourth paragraph presents a problem with this principle: some types of evidence, though relevant, such as hearsay and interested-party testimony, are inherently unreliable or misleading. Bentham's response to this was that the juries should be allowed to judge the value of the evidence, rather than having some types be excluded in advance. So "the alternative" to his view is the practice of excluding certain types of evidence from consideration in a trial, and this is what he characterizes as preference of ignorance to knowledge.

(D) is correct because it correctly identifies the practice Bentham is criticizing: refusal to allow the jury to consider certain relevant evidence.

Does that clear this one up for you?

[boy5237]

Could someone please paraphrase what this question is asking?

[nflamel69]

In other words, what does ignorance to knowledge refers to according to Bentham?

[giladedelman]

If you're having trouble digesting the meaning of a sentence, question, answer choice, etc., try breaking it into smaller pieces.

"What specifically does Bentham characterize as ..."

Okay, so Bentham takes something and characterizes it in a certain way; we're looking for that thing.

"... preference of ignorance over knowledge?"

Okay, so Bentham says that X is like preferring ignorance over knowledge. We just need to find X.

[ttunden]

So my understanding of this Q stem was " according to the passage, what does Bentham characterize as preference of ignorance to knowledge " or basically what does Bentham say should not be allowed to be heard in trial.

Thus, I picked C. Because I felt this is what should be excluded and what the jury should NOT hear. I now understand after reading through the explanation that C isn't even in the 4th passage so it is suspicious right away. However, under timed conditions I picked C.

Can anyone please elaborate on why C would not work? I understand why A B and E are out.

Also, are we suppose to equate "interested-party testimony" and "hearsay" as relevant testimony? Or would it be considered the evidence that Bentham would exclude?

Thanks