Q5

[andrewgong01]

For this question, was the answer "E" because the other choices were more wrong? It just doesn't seem like "E" seems like a good answer either as to how Author A would view how PAssabe B says justification on the grounds of cases that are too trivial.

Answer Choices
A: Author A never brings up trivial cases so we have no idea

B: Author A never talks about trivial cases so we have no idea

C: I was not sure what it means but I am guessing it is saying members of the jury are unlikey to agree with each other on the evaluation of not the case itself but how serious the case is. I guess this brings up "trivial" but Passage A never talks about jurors agreeing with each other as it was Passage B that brought up jurors reaching an agreement with each other. However, in B's case it was in agreeing to nullify ( for various reasons and not just because it is too trivial) and never said anything about the potential to never agree with each other

D: Author A never talks about if jurors can evaluate the case based of its strengths and weaknesses

E: Paragraph 3 of Passage A does cite this as a reason as to why nullification is "bad" ( jurors do not know all the info behind the accused) but this is not really a good response to counter someone saying "nullification is justified because sometimes cases are trivial" and then the other person replies " you are misguided because jurors do not know everything about the defendant" [ That does not get to the point of trivial court cases; it does not dispute or accept that some cases are trivial]

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Author Opinion

Answer expected in lines/paragraph:
Lines 17-28 are where Psg A discusses his qualms with jury nullification.

Any prephrase?
He might say "the juries don't have enough evidence to determine if it's trivial" or "it's not up to JURIES to determine if a law is trivial; leave THAT to the elected legislators/judges."

Correct answer:
E

Answer choice analysis:

(A) This doesn't line up with anything in 17-28.

(B) This doesn't reinforce 17-28.

(C) This is irrelevant … we're talking about juries who DID nullify, so in THEIR case there was consensus/accord.

(D) Maybe … this sounds kinda like 17-28. "not being informed" / "not being elected" kinda sound like "don't have sufficient expertise". But it's not precisely about insufficient EXPERTISE. Psg A's author is more concerned that jurors wouldn't be making a totally INFORMED decision (don't have all the facts) or wouldn't be making an ACCOUNTABLE decision (weren't elected and don't have to think through ramificaitons of acquittal)

(E) Yes this sounds more specifically about 17-28. In particular, it's the objection made in 17-22. The idea here is that you might bring charges of tax evasion against a murderous thug like Al Capone. The jury might think the tax evasion charge is frivolous, but that's only because they don't know that the prosecutor is TRYING to find a way to lock up someone with a dangerous criminal past.

Takeaway/Pattern: Tough down-to-2 with (D) and (E). I think (D) feels better, but "expertise" is out of scope. The question stem gives us a clear Proof Window: lines 17-28 are where the author of Psg A offers potential criticisms of jury nullification. If we force ourselves to stick to that, we'll come away with (E).

#officialexplanation

[JinZ551]

Question Type:
Author Opinion

Answer expected in lines/paragraph:
Lines 17-28 are where Psg A discusses his qualms with jury nullification.

Any prephrase?
He might say "the juries don't have enough evidence to determine if it's trivial" or "it's not up to JURIES to determine if a law is trivial; leave THAT to the elected legislators/judges."

Correct answer:
E

Answer choice analysis:

(A) This doesn't line up with anything in 17-28.

(B) This doesn't reinforce 17-28.

(C) This is irrelevant … we're talking about juries who DID nullify, so in THEIR case there was consensus/accord.

(D) Maybe … this sounds kinda like 17-28. "not being informed" / "not being elected" kinda sound like "don't have sufficient expertise". But it's not precisely about insufficient EXPERTISE. Psg A's author is more concerned that jurors wouldn't be making a totally INFORMED decision (don't have all the facts) or wouldn't be making an ACCOUNTABLE decision (weren't elected and don't have to think through ramificaitons of acquittal)

(E) Yes this sounds more specifically about 17-28. In particular, it's the objection made in 17-22. The idea here is that you might bring charges of tax evasion against a murderous thug like Al Capone. The jury might think the tax evasion charge is frivolous, but that's only because they don't know that the prosecutor is TRYING to find a way to lock up someone with a dangerous criminal past.

Takeaway/Pattern: Tough down-to-2 with (D) and (E). I think (D) feels better, but "expertise" is out of scope. The question stem gives us a clear Proof Window: lines 17-28 are where the author of Psg A offers potential criticisms of jury nullification. If we force ourselves to stick to that, we'll come away with (E).

#officialexplanation

I thought "Third, juries are not legislators" is kind of proof for "not sufficient expertise"?

My concern about D is what does "strengths and weaknesses of a case“ mean?

[Wenjin]

I really don’t know how to infer from line 17-22 that : “Jury doesn’t have sufficient evidence to nullify a case “ to say answer E: “jury doesn’t know all reasons why a case was brought to court”.

It seems they are talking about totally different things: the passage is about evidence to prove that the case is trivial, the answer E is about knowledge of the case is not trivial.

A: you don’t have proof to say he is innocent
B: you don’t know why he should be charged

Are they the same?