PrepTest 150 - Section 4 - Passage 4 - Question 27

Hide analysis

Passage A.

Trial court judges oppose independent research · They say it distorts the adversarial system and that judges aren't that good at research

█████ █████ ████████ ████ ████ ██████ ████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ ████████ ███████████ ██ ███ █████████ ███

Author's criticism · The judges' concerns don't justify an absolute ban on independent research by judges

██████ █████ ███ ███████ ██ █████████ ███████████ ██████ ██ ███ ██████████ ████████ ████████ ███ ███████████ ██████ ██ ████████████ ██████████ ██ ████████ ███████████ ██████████ ███ ███ ███████ █████████ ███ ██████████ ██████ ██████████ █████ █████████ ███████ ███████████ ███ ████████ ██████████ ██ ███ ████ █████ ██████████ █████ ███ ███████ ██████ ███ ████████ ██ ███ █████████ ██████ ███████ ██████████ █████████████ █████████ ███ █████ ████████████ █████████ ████ ██████ ██████ █████████ █████████ ███████ ████ ███ ██████████ ██ ███ ███████ ███████████ ████████ █████ ████ ██████ █████ ████ ███████

Support 1 · Adversarial system doesn't handle specialized knowledge (like science) well

Independence research for specialized knowledge can help.

Support 2 · Trial structure reduces possibility of reaching bad research results

Independent research only supplements the parties' evidence.

███████ █

██████████ ██ ████ █████ ██████ ███ ███ █████████ ██████ ██████ ██████ ███ ██████████ ██ ███████ █████ ███ ███████████ ████████ ██ ██████████ ███████████

Author's perspective · Appellate courts should not do independent research

Trial court judges can do whatever they want. But appellate courts shouldn't do research.

██ █ ███████ █████ █████████ ██████ ██ ███ ████ ████ ██████████ ████ █████ ██████ ████ ████ ██ ███ ████████ █████ █████████ ██ ███ █████ █████ ███ ████████ ██ █ █████████████ ██ ███ ██████ ████ █████████ ███ ██████████████████ ███████ ██████████ ██ ███ █████ ███ ████ █████████ ███ ██████████ ██████ ████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ █████████ ██████████ ███████████ ███ ███████ ███████ ███ ████ ███ ███████████ ███ ███████████ ██ █████████ ██████████ ██ ██████████ ███ ██████ ███████ ██ ███ ████████ █████ ██████ ████ ████████ ███ ███ █████████ ██ ██████████████████████████ ███ █████ █████ ███ ████ ███████████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ ███████████ ████ ██████████ ████████ █████ ██████ ███ ████ █████ ██ ███ █████ ██████

Support · Appellate courts don't have important tools for figuring out what's true

Live testimony from experts can help judges understand scientific stuff, and cross-examination of those experts can help discover what's true. Appellate judges don't get these things, since they happen only at the trial level.

Support · Trial courts determine the facts; appellate courts shouldn't intrude on this

Support · Appellate courts who do research risk reaching bad results; they also shouldn't read stuff that wasn't presented to the trial court

Passage Style

27.

The stances of the authors ██ ███████ █ ███ ███████ ██ █████████████ ██████ ███████████ ████████ ██ ███ ████ ██ █████ ██████ ███ ████ ██████████ █████████ ██

Question Type

Author’s attitude

Implied

Split Approach: After passage A, eliminate any answer choices that don’t start with author A’s attitude. (Her argument is that independent research by trial judges is sometimes acceptable.) Then, after passage B, choose the remaining answer choice that ends with author B’s attitude. (He doesn’t take a stance on what trial judges should do. He’s just interested in appellate judges.)

Sequential Approach: Author A’s attitude toward independent research by trial judges is on the positive side; she argues that we should sometimes allow such research. Author B’s attitude is summed up at the very start of passage B: he doesn’t take a stance on what trial judges should do.

resigned acceptance and ████████ ███████████

Author A isn’t resigned. She pushes back against the position of some trial judges and argues for why we should actually sometimes allow judges to do independent research. Her argument is a counter-position, not an acceptance.

Author B only disapproves of appellate judges doing independent research. He doesn’t take a stance on what trial judges should do.

14%

cautious ambivalence and ██████ ██████████

Author A isn’t ambivalent (i.e., on the fence). She has a clear position: it’s sometimes okay for trial judges to do independent research.

Author B isn’t neutral. He has a clear position: it’s never okay for appellate judges to do independent research.

reasoned skepticism and ██████ █████████

Author A does express some skepticism, both of the research conducted by trial judges and of the ability of the adversarial system to handle specialized knowledge.

The problem is the description of author B’s attitude. “Veiled antipathy” would mean author B has expresses a strong dislike (antipathy) but tries to veil or hide that dislike. This isn’t author B’s attitude. He argues against independent research by appellate judges, but he doesn’t exhibit any dislike—hidden or otherwise—of either independent research or appellate judges. He just thinks such research is inappropriate for appellate judges, given how appellate courts work.

qualified approval and ████████ █████████████

Author A’s attitude is qualified approval. She argues that trial judges should sometimes be allowed to do independent research (hence “approval”), but at the same time, she acknowledges that there are still valid concerns around such research (hence “qualified” approval).

Author B’s attitude is explicit noncommitment. He states explicitly at the start of passage B that he’s not addressing whether trial judges should or shouldn’t do independent research.

52%

forceful advocacy and █████████ ██████████

Author A advocates for allowing trial judges to do independent research, but not forcefully. To the contrary, she’s quite conservative in her advocacy.

Author B isn’t tentatively opposed to trial judges doing research; he doesn’t have any stance on the matter.

20%

PrepTest 150 - Section 4 - Passage 4 - Question 27

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action