Can someone help me understand the answer to this question? I choose "B" because:
- "Three Central Issues in the Debate": The author did mention three specific reasons why jury nullification should not occur
- "The Unexpected Benefits of Permitting Cameras in Court": covered aspects like juries being a safety valve
Where as the correct answer, "C":
- "The Inherent Dangers of Permitting Cameras in Court": was correct; however,
- "How Televising Courtroom Proceedings Can Assist the Law": seemed too narrow
Did I err because of the word "debate" in choice B? Would the passage have had to explain both sides of the argument for "B" to have been the right answer?
LSAT Forum
2 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- ohthatpatrick
-
Thanks Received: 3808
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: April 01st, 2011
Re: Q3
When we're talking Titles for the passage, we're talking Big Picture ideas like Main Point / Purpose, so I would begin my prephrasing for Q3 by thinking, "What was the Main Point / Purpose for each passage? How did they relate".
They were both addressing the same TOPIC: jury nullification
Psg A had a negative attitude:
"The problems created by the jury's power to nullify are great.
First ... , second .... , third ..... ."
Psg B had a positive attitude:
"The jury can act as a safety valve [against overzealous police/prosecutors".
"When a jury nullifies, ... it can also be viewed as assisting the legislature."
(A) first half is negative. second half is neutral (pro and cons)
(B) first half is neutral (issues in the debate). second half is positive.
(C) first half is negative. second half is positive
(D) first half is negative. second half is positive
(E) first half is negative. second half is unclear (definitely thinks that cameras are coming but not sure if the author is happy or sad about that)
Since (C) and (D) were the only ones that correctly captured the relationship between A and B (I'm against it vs. I'm for it), what's their difference?
(C)'s first half is "inherent dangers", which matches nicely with "the problems created by jury nullification".
(D)'s first half is about "troublesome history", which doesn't match psg A.
(C)'s second half is "can assist", which is mildly positive like "can be viewed as assisting the legislature".
(D)'s second half is "has praiseworthy motives", which is a weaker match for psg B.
So (C) wins.
When authors express their opinion within a passage, the main point / purpose / title should reflect that. Neutrality can be wrong. That's the problem with (B)'s first half.
They were both addressing the same TOPIC: jury nullification
Psg A had a negative attitude:
"The problems created by the jury's power to nullify are great.
First ... , second .... , third ..... ."
Psg B had a positive attitude:
"The jury can act as a safety valve [against overzealous police/prosecutors".
"When a jury nullifies, ... it can also be viewed as assisting the legislature."
(A) first half is negative. second half is neutral (pro and cons)
(B) first half is neutral (issues in the debate). second half is positive.
(C) first half is negative. second half is positive
(D) first half is negative. second half is positive
(E) first half is negative. second half is unclear (definitely thinks that cameras are coming but not sure if the author is happy or sad about that)
Since (C) and (D) were the only ones that correctly captured the relationship between A and B (I'm against it vs. I'm for it), what's their difference?
(C)'s first half is "inherent dangers", which matches nicely with "the problems created by jury nullification".
(D)'s first half is about "troublesome history", which doesn't match psg A.
(C)'s second half is "can assist", which is mildly positive like "can be viewed as assisting the legislature".
(D)'s second half is "has praiseworthy motives", which is a weaker match for psg B.
So (C) wins.
When authors express their opinion within a passage, the main point / purpose / title should reflect that. Neutrality can be wrong. That's the problem with (B)'s first half.
2 posts Page 1 of 1