LSAT 158 – Section 4 – Question 16

LSAT 158 - Section 4 - Question 16

May 2020

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:16

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT158 S4 Q16
+LR
Weaken +Weak
Causal Reasoning +CausR
Net Effect +NetEff
Link Assumption +LinkA
A
24%
155
B
1%
150
C
1%
154
D
69%
163
E
4%
157
141
152
162
 +Medium 148.293 +SubsectionMedium

Journalist: When judges do not maintain strict control over their courtrooms, lawyers often try to influence jury verdicts by using inflammatory language and by badgering witnesses. These obstructive behaviors hinder the jury’s effort to reach a correct verdict. Whenever lawyers engage in such behavior, therefore, it is reasonable to doubt whether the verdict is correct.

Summarize Argument
A Journalist argues that it is reasonable to doubt whether a verdict is correct when judges do not maintain strict control over their courtrooms. Without such control, lawyers often use inflammatory language and badger witnesses, hindering the jury’s effort to reach a correct verdict.

Notable Assumptions
The Journalist assumes that lawyers often effectively influence jury verdicts through obstructive behaviors.
The Journalist also assumes that the impact of obstructive behaviors outweighs that of other evidence/testimony

A
Court proceedings overseen by judges who are very strict in controlling lawyers’ behavior are known to result sometimes in incorrect verdicts.
While this casts doubt on the reliability of trials with strict judges, it does not weaken the link between obstructive behaviors warranting being skeptical of the verdict.
B
Lawyers tend to be less concerned than are judges about whether the outcomes of jury trials are just or not.
It does not matter whether lawyers or judges are concerned with the outcomes of jury trials. The argument is focused on the impact of obstructive behaviors on the verdict
C
People who are influenced by inflammatory language are very unlikely to admit at some later time that they were influenced by such language.
It does not matter whether people *admit* that they were influenced by inflammatory language. The argument is focused on the *impact* of such language
D
Obstructive courtroom behavior by a lawyer is seldom effective in cases where jurors are also presented with legitimate evidence.
This undermines a key assumption: that the impact of obstructive behavior will outweigh legitimate evidence. If it is rarely effective in cases with legitimate evidence, the conclusion is severely weakened.
E
The selection of jurors is based in part on an assessment of the likelihood that they are free of bias.
The jury selection process is irrelevant to the argument’s reasoning. The argument is focused on the link between obstructive behavior and the verdict’s validity

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 158 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply