Another principle that is assumed by the stimulus is that as long as there is a defedent who can't have their right to have their legal counsel present when being questions guaranteed, then the order requested by the plaintiff cannot be granted. (since there are three codefendants and only two shared the same lawyer)
and
when granting an order would violate a right, then the judge shall not grant that order
@Lidiia definitely a bug. Sometimes when you reload it doesn't capture the time spent correctly. IK questions I spent a solid 2 minutes on and it said I spend 30 seconds lol
I thought B was a given because it is true in the "real world" and not just in this stimulus which is exactly why I didn't choose it because I thought it was too obvious. How can I differentiate between assumptions I am personally making and assumptions that I am making based on the stimulus?
@SophiaWood I understand that you were thinking that (B) is already something true. When that happens, I might examine the stimulus to see whether that actually was something already stated by the premises. Very likely it wasn't, and the reason we thought it was already true is that we were bringing our own unwarranted assumption.
This can happen quite often in some other question types, especially Necessary Assumption. We look at an answer and think "that was already established..." But when we think that, it's often a sign that this could be the right answer. Often, it actually wasn't already established, but our minds just filled in the gaps while reading the stimulus and we perceived it as already being established.
How do you know when you are encountering a principle/rule in the stimulus? Is it because the stimulus provided sets of facts that don't support each other and then a conclusion?
@AnistiBarrett I usually look for the question stem for direction. In principle or rule they're painting a picture for you; you would need to see what are the premises and facts trying to tell you.
I got this answer correct but I'm still a bit confused on the stimulus.
"Two of the codefendants', however, share the same legal counsel." has nothing really to do with justifying the order being rejected, right? As in, if you completely remove that one sentence, and everything else was kept the same, answer choice B would have still been the correct answer?
I did POE because I couldn't understand how the "facts" and the "rules" connected to one another (unlike like the question we did before this one about the medication).
@jansenbienmbelarmino This sentence is actually critical to B being right! Applying B, the reason the order isn't granted is that the defendants' right to legal counsel is being violated. This is evident because questioning defendants without their codefendants' counsel present can only be achieved by removing their counsel if defendants share counsel. If we removed the sentence and assumed that each codefendant had their own legal counsel, then there would be no reason to believe that there was no legal counsel present, as each could have had their own without violating any rules.
For whatever reason, I originally read it as the plaintiff requested to question a defendant without the defendant's own legal counsel there for a second, and I was horrifically concerned haha. Glad I reread it and managed to understand it better.
I'm so confused. it says without their CODEFENDANTs counsel present. not their own. it never said they cant have their own present and it only talked about how they won't make them find a new one because of them sharing a counsel so I would only assume it would be against some rule for the counsel to hear both questions. im lost.
So I drew this up to help me out. Think about this: there's three co-defendants. Let's name them A, B, and C. The plantiff wants to question each one of them individually without their co-defendants present. So for example: if she wants to question A, then B and C and their counsels cannot be present for that questioning. The problem is, is that two of these co-defendants share the same lawyer. So she may want to question B, but then B has the same lawyer as A... So, the rule can't work because the only way for it to work is if A got a different lawyer. The stimulus shows that the judge is not making the defendant get a different lawyer and he has a right to pick his own counsel. So, the rule literally cannot work because no matter how much she wants to question B and not have A present, they have the same lawyer: its impossible.
What is the implicit (subtle) assumption here? That the defendants have a right to their counsels being present for questioning. Otherwise, then the rule wouldn't be an issue if they didn't need their lawyers present.
Was I wrong to assume the possibility that the defendants could have been questioned at different times? Where was it implied that all defendants were being questioned simultaneously, or is this just the common court process in these circumstances?
I think what might help clear the confusion is that the issue isn't whether the codefendants should be questioned simultaneously or not; it's the fact that the rule posed by the defendant has two parts to it. One is that, yes, the codefendants should not be questioned together, but the second part is that a codefendant's legal counsel should not be present during another codefendant's questioning.
One way to avoid breaking the rule, as you stated, is to question the co-defendants at different times. However, the stimulus states that the issue arises because two of the defendants have the same legal counsel. It is this fact ALONE that makes it so they cannot proceed with the questioning.
That makes you wonder, "Why is the fact that the legal counsel is the SAME for two defendants the thing that poses an issue?" With this question in mind, once you look through the answer choices through POE (process of elimination), the reason why B is the correct answer becomes clearer.
Answer choice B shows that even if you separate the two codefendants while they're being questioned, the fact that their legal counsel HAS the right to be present during their client's questioning violates a part of the rule. It breaks the second part of the initial rule posed by the plaintiff -- it would violate the second condition that the co-defendant's legal counsel should not be present for the other co-defendant (i.e., codefendant 1 has the same legal counsel as codefendant 2). It would violate this condition because by applying answer choice B, you make it the case that the same legal counsel for codefendant 1 would HAVE to have the right to sit through both defendant 1 and 2's questioning, or else it would violate the fact that defendants have a choice to have their legal counsel present during questioning.
So, this is my long-winded explanation to state that you weren't wrong to assume that they could be questioned at different times; this would have solved the issue if it were the case that all defendants had different lawyers. This assumption became ineffective once you realized that the stimulus stated that 2 of the defendants had the same representation, so whether or not they were questioned at different times would not matter much if answer choice B was applied. Hope this helps! :)
B is also the only answer choice that has anything to do with the stimulus. All of the other ones bring in rules that are completely irrelevant to the stim.
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
Sorry, you need a subscription for that.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
83 comments
Another principle that is assumed by the stimulus is that as long as there is a defedent who can't have their right to have their legal counsel present when being questions guaranteed, then the order requested by the plaintiff cannot be granted. (since there are three codefendants and only two shared the same lawyer)
and
when granting an order would violate a right, then the judge shall not grant that order
Its crazy how sometimes the "harder" questions are way easier than the "easier" questions...Hope this means I am learning.
Is the 'or' here inclusive?
I am quickly learning that oftentimes the most obvious answer is the correct answer.
@Lidiia definitely a bug. Sometimes when you reload it doesn't capture the time spent correctly. IK questions I spent a solid 2 minutes on and it said I spend 30 seconds lol
YAYAYA I got it right:)
Surprisingly got this in 52 seconds … hoping the rest of the lesson is like this lol
I got it right heheh- took me 5 minutes ...
This is a 3 star question? This took me way too long
@MRod
Right there with ya. Honestly, I found the wording confusing.
I thought B was a given because it is true in the "real world" and not just in this stimulus which is exactly why I didn't choose it because I thought it was too obvious. How can I differentiate between assumptions I am personally making and assumptions that I am making based on the stimulus?
@SophiaWood I understand that you were thinking that (B) is already something true. When that happens, I might examine the stimulus to see whether that actually was something already stated by the premises. Very likely it wasn't, and the reason we thought it was already true is that we were bringing our own unwarranted assumption.
This can happen quite often in some other question types, especially Necessary Assumption. We look at an answer and think "that was already established..." But when we think that, it's often a sign that this could be the right answer. Often, it actually wasn't already established, but our minds just filled in the gaps while reading the stimulus and we perceived it as already being established.
@Kevin_Lin I had the same issue and your response was helpful, thank you!
bruh why did it take me 5 mins to get this right. im so slow
why am i so dumb choosing E... haha after BR and reviewing more carefully its so obvious it was B
Timing is Getting Way Better. Right Answer No Second Guessing 52 Seconds Under Target Time!
How do you know when you are encountering a principle/rule in the stimulus? Is it because the stimulus provided sets of facts that don't support each other and then a conclusion?
@AnistiBarrett I usually look for the question stem for direction. In principle or rule they're painting a picture for you; you would need to see what are the premises and facts trying to tell you.
I got it right but I was 55 seconds over again!
This is giving LG
just did this question in the last drill from the section prior
I got this answer correct but I'm still a bit confused on the stimulus.
"Two of the codefendants', however, share the same legal counsel." has nothing really to do with justifying the order being rejected, right? As in, if you completely remove that one sentence, and everything else was kept the same, answer choice B would have still been the correct answer?
I did POE because I couldn't understand how the "facts" and the "rules" connected to one another (unlike like the question we did before this one about the medication).
@jansenbienmbelarmino This sentence is actually critical to B being right! Applying B, the reason the order isn't granted is that the defendants' right to legal counsel is being violated. This is evident because questioning defendants without their codefendants' counsel present can only be achieved by removing their counsel if defendants share counsel. If we removed the sentence and assumed that each codefendant had their own legal counsel, then there would be no reason to believe that there was no legal counsel present, as each could have had their own without violating any rules.
can someone explain why this isnt a PSA q?
Is it about the strength of the assumption?
took me a while but got it right the first time!!
For whatever reason, I originally read it as the plaintiff requested to question a defendant without the defendant's own legal counsel there for a second, and I was horrifically concerned haha. Glad I reread it and managed to understand it better.
Anytime legal jargon is used im cooked is that a bad sign
nah you're good fam, you'll learn in law school
@kisabelo46998 lol
I'm so confused. it says without their CODEFENDANTs counsel present. not their own. it never said they cant have their own present and it only talked about how they won't make them find a new one because of them sharing a counsel so I would only assume it would be against some rule for the counsel to hear both questions. im lost.
So I drew this up to help me out. Think about this: there's three co-defendants. Let's name them A, B, and C. The plantiff wants to question each one of them individually without their co-defendants present. So for example: if she wants to question A, then B and C and their counsels cannot be present for that questioning. The problem is, is that two of these co-defendants share the same lawyer. So she may want to question B, but then B has the same lawyer as A... So, the rule can't work because the only way for it to work is if A got a different lawyer. The stimulus shows that the judge is not making the defendant get a different lawyer and he has a right to pick his own counsel. So, the rule literally cannot work because no matter how much she wants to question B and not have A present, they have the same lawyer: its impossible.
What is the implicit (subtle) assumption here? That the defendants have a right to their counsels being present for questioning. Otherwise, then the rule wouldn't be an issue if they didn't need their lawyers present.
Hopefully this makes sense.
@josuermorales this was so helpful, thank you!! It makes 1000x more sense when you draw it out
@josuermorales i got this question right but ur mapping out the reason as to why B is correct makes it so so much clearer so thank you!
Was I wrong to assume the possibility that the defendants could have been questioned at different times? Where was it implied that all defendants were being questioned simultaneously, or is this just the common court process in these circumstances?
I think what might help clear the confusion is that the issue isn't whether the codefendants should be questioned simultaneously or not; it's the fact that the rule posed by the defendant has two parts to it. One is that, yes, the codefendants should not be questioned together, but the second part is that a codefendant's legal counsel should not be present during another codefendant's questioning.
One way to avoid breaking the rule, as you stated, is to question the co-defendants at different times. However, the stimulus states that the issue arises because two of the defendants have the same legal counsel. It is this fact ALONE that makes it so they cannot proceed with the questioning.
That makes you wonder, "Why is the fact that the legal counsel is the SAME for two defendants the thing that poses an issue?" With this question in mind, once you look through the answer choices through POE (process of elimination), the reason why B is the correct answer becomes clearer.
Answer choice B shows that even if you separate the two codefendants while they're being questioned, the fact that their legal counsel HAS the right to be present during their client's questioning violates a part of the rule. It breaks the second part of the initial rule posed by the plaintiff -- it would violate the second condition that the co-defendant's legal counsel should not be present for the other co-defendant (i.e., codefendant 1 has the same legal counsel as codefendant 2). It would violate this condition because by applying answer choice B, you make it the case that the same legal counsel for codefendant 1 would HAVE to have the right to sit through both defendant 1 and 2's questioning, or else it would violate the fact that defendants have a choice to have their legal counsel present during questioning.
So, this is my long-winded explanation to state that you weren't wrong to assume that they could be questioned at different times; this would have solved the issue if it were the case that all defendants had different lawyers. This assumption became ineffective once you realized that the stimulus stated that 2 of the defendants had the same representation, so whether or not they were questioned at different times would not matter much if answer choice B was applied. Hope this helps! :)
This was so helpful!!!!
B is also the only answer choice that has anything to do with the stimulus. All of the other ones bring in rules that are completely irrelevant to the stim.