irenewerwerwer
Thanks Received: 1
Forum Guests
 
Posts: 12
Joined: August 31st, 2011
 
 
 

Q4 - At mock trials in which

by irenewerwerwer Wed Sep 21, 2011 4:49 pm

I narrow down to E by elimination but I am confused by "jurors had become aware of ...nonverbal behavior: facial..., ...tone of voice"--It seems to play no role in the stimulus?

I used to think every sentence should have some influence/play a certain role in the stimulus. But this one seems do not relate with any other sentence? Does it just a trick of LSAC to shift focus?

I have repeatedly done this question for three times and that sentence still confuses me.

Any one throw some thoughts? Thanks in advance!
 
giladedelman
Thanks Received: 833
LSAT Geek
 
Posts: 619
Joined: April 04th, 2010
 
This post thanked 2 times.
 
 

Re: Q4 - At mock trials in which

by giladedelman Sat Sep 24, 2011 12:19 pm

Thanks for posting!

Two things.

1) To answer your general question, there is no law that says every sentence in the stimulus must play an important role. In fact, a huge portion of LR stimuli have components that are entirely superfluous. It's our job to separate the relevant from the irrelevant. On an inference question, like this one, our job is simply to pick the answer that's most supported by the statements, whichever statements end up providing that support.

2) When it comes to this sentence specifically, I actually don't think the line you mentioned is irrelevant, per se; rather, it is explaining how the jurors ended up mirroring the judge's opinion. But, you are right that we don't need it to support answer (E). That's fine.

So (E) is correct because we know that when the instruction is all technical jargon, jurors tend to mirror the judge's opinion, but when the instruction is in clear language, they are more likely to give their own opinion. So the way in which juries are instructed can influence their opinions.

(A) is incorrect because we don't know which is more precise.

(B) is incorrect because we know nothing about the connection between influence and status.

(C) is out because the effectiveness of nonverbal communication doesn't get addressed; in fact, all we have is one example of nonverbal communication succeeding in influencing an opinion. But we don't know whether it's effective overall or not.

(D) is out because this is about mock trials the whole time.

Does that answer your question?
 
irenewerwerwer
Thanks Received: 1
Forum Guests
 
Posts: 12
Joined: August 31st, 2011
 
 
 

Re: Q4 - At mock trials in which

by irenewerwerwer Sat Sep 24, 2011 2:30 pm

Thanks very much giladedelman! After reading your analysis I re-read the stimulus and it suddenly daunts on me that particular sentences play a role:

I perceive the stimulus try to convey:

when giving technical jargons, the judge reveals facial expressions which is captured by jurors. Then they mirror the his opinion in the verdict. when giving instruction in clear, nontechnical language, the judge probably does not reveal facial expressions, therefore the jurors make verdict only on the basis of language, which results in less mirrored verdict with the judge.

Is my understanding correct?
 
Darabi.Shawn
Thanks Received: 1
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 9
Joined: January 05th, 2013
 
This post thanked 1 time.
 
 

Re: Q4 - At mock trials in which

by Darabi.Shawn Sat Dec 28, 2013 10:50 pm

I have a problem with the correct answer E.

E) The way in which a judge instructs a jury can influence the jury's verdict.

I know we are going to be lawyers so we should already know this stuff but am I wrong in saying that we must infer that the judge is giving instructions to the jury because nowhere in the stimulus does it state that. When I read it, I thought that the middle sentence was just stating that jurors tend to mirror judge's expressions and movements was completely apart from the fact of giving a jury instructions.
 
sumukh09
Thanks Received: 139
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 327
Joined: June 03rd, 2012
 
 
trophy
Most Thanked
trophy
First Responder
 

Re: Q4 - At mock trials in which

by sumukh09 Tue Dec 31, 2013 10:33 am

Darabi.Shawn Wrote:I have a problem with the correct answer E.

E) The way in which a judge instructs a jury can influence the jury's verdict.

I know we are going to be lawyers so we should already know this stuff but am I wrong in saying that we must infer that the judge is giving instructions to the jury because nowhere in the stimulus does it state that. When I read it, I thought that the middle sentence was just stating that jurors tend to mirror judge's expressions and movements was completely apart from the fact of giving a jury instructions.


Hi,

The inference you are claiming we need to make is already explicitly given to us in the stimulus. Judges do instruct the jury, either in technical legal jargon or non technical language. And it is how this instruction is conveyed that is of importance in getting to answer choice E. We know that when it is given in technical legal jargon the jury tends to mirror the judge's opinion, but when it is given in non technical jargon the jury is comparatively at odds with the judge's verdict; so, the manner in which the judge "instructs" the jury can influence the jury's verdict. Best expressed in answer choice E. Hope this helps, let me know if you're still unsure.
User avatar
 
rinagoldfield
Thanks Received: 309
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 390
Joined: December 13th, 2011
 
This post thanked 2 times.
 
 

Re: Q4 - At mock trials in which

by rinagoldfield Wed Jan 01, 2014 2:39 pm

Thanks for your posts, Darabi.Shawn and Sumokh!

Darabi.Shawn, I actually agree with you that an extra jump is required here. We’re never EXPLICITLY told who gives the jury instructions. Is it the judge? Is it the stenographer? Is it, I dunno, God? We don’t know!

However, I don’t think this gap creates a big problem for (E). One thing we DO know for sure is that the way in which instructions are given to juries impacts the verdict. So if a stenographer gives the instructions, the way in which he/she gives the instructions can impact the verdict. If God gives the instructions, the way in which he/she gives the instructions can impact the verdict. If the judge gives the instructions, the way in which he/she gives the instructions can impact the verdict. And, hey, that’s what (E) says. The key connection is the "way" and the "impact the verdict," not the "who."

I really like the way you’re thinking, though, Darabi. Your scalpel-esque precision is exactly what’s required to excel at the LSAT. Keep up the good work!
 
oscey12
Thanks Received: 2
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 15
Joined: August 27th, 2014
 
 
 

Re: Q4 - At mock trials in which

by oscey12 Thu Oct 08, 2015 5:11 pm

I too saw that same problem with E, but I don't think the reasons given really justify it. The reason that E is correct is because of the question stem. It asks which is best illustrated. The correct answer could have been: The way in which a waiter instructs a table can influence the table's choices. The option just happened to be about a judge which was designed to throw people off. So no, I don't think that the LSAT expects us to make the jump that the judge always instructs the jury. That would be outside information.
 
JeremyK686
Thanks Received: 0
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 11
Joined: July 11th, 2020
 
 
 

Re: Q4 - At mock trials in which

by JeremyK686 Mon Jul 20, 2020 2:17 am

Darabi.Shawn Wrote:I have a problem with the correct answer E.

E) The way in which a judge instructs a jury can influence the jury's verdict.

I know we are going to be lawyers so we should already know this stuff but am I wrong in saying that we must infer that the judge is giving instructions to the jury because nowhere in the stimulus does it state that. When I read it, I thought that the middle sentence was just stating that jurors tend to mirror judge's expressions and movements was completely apart from the fact of giving a jury instructions.

I thought about this too, but, even if the judge didn't personally give the instructions, the judge has the ultimate say for just about everything that happens in their court. They're like the director of a movie set: an assistant director, or maybe even an on-site acting coach or script supervisor can personally direct the actors, but that direction is all under the authority of the director.