PT48.S4.Q13 - Columnist: Tagowa's testimony in the Pemberton trial was not heard outside

Comments

• FixedDice Member

  June 2018 1804 karma

  Now I know that any verdict requires a unanimous decision, even a not guilty verdict. However, doesn't that reward those who know that about the legal system? Is that supposed to be common knowledge?

  I don't know about your background, but at my high school a class on politics and economics (available both in Advanced Placement and "regular" formats) was mandatory. I don't know whether that class touched on the jury system (I was exempt from that requirement and therefore did not take that particular class); I also don't know whether all high schools require coursework on politics and economics. I do know for a fact, however, that there is an Advanced Placement on American government and politics. So I would think there is a significant number of American students who attend college with some basic knowledge about how the American government works. A number of other classes - most notably ones on American history - touch on how it works as well.

  I would think the knowledge of the jury system is not so much outside knowledge as it is a part of knowledge and experience "reasonably expected" (whatever that means) from those who take the LSAT. The test is geared mainly toward those who seek admission to law schools in North America, after all.
• NotMyName Alum Member Sage ⭐

  June 2018 5320 karma

  Sounds like the problem wasn't that you lacked outside knowledge, but that you made a bad assumption that poisoned your reasoning: juries work by defaulting to a not-guilty verdict when a unanimous decision to convict couldn't be reached. It's a slightly different issue.

  The the flaw in this question is that the columnist assumes that the testimony of someone who believes a defendant to be guilty must be incriminating for the defendant. But that's not necessarily true.

  E can be eliminated even with your bad assumption since the premise states that jurors disagreed with regards to the testimony -- this wasn't overlooked.
• Logic Gainz Alum Member ⭐

  June 2018 700 karma

  @NotMyName The argument concludes that not all of the jurors believed the testimony, so does that suggest that the jurors disagree on its significance? If so, then I see how the argument considers answer choice E and doesn't overlook it at all.
• NotMyName Alum Member Sage ⭐

  June 2018 5320 karma

  @"Logic Gainz" do you think it's fair to assume that upon hearing testimony that, if true, is incriminating, a juror who believes that testimony gives different significance to it than a juror who does not believe it?
• Logic Gainz Alum Member ⭐

  June 2018 700 karma

  @NotMyName I'd say that's a very fair assumption to make, but a part of me is thinking your question in response to my own question was posed because of how obvious the answer is - that it is a fair assumption to make, therefore the difference in significance given by each juror is, in fact, considered by the argument.
• Logic Gainz Alum Member ⭐

  June 2018 edited June 2018 700 karma

  @NotMyName Also, I think I was confused with your initial response to my question, because a premise didn't state that some jurors didn't believe the testimony. The conclusion stated this, but regardless, the conclusion is still a piece of the argument, therefore the difference in significance is still considered by the argument.
• NotMyName Alum Member Sage ⭐

  June 2018 5320 karma

  I'd say that's a very fair assumption to make, but a part of me is thinking your question in response to my own question was posed because of how obvious the answer is - that it is a fair assumption to make

  lol no I swear it's not so! In fact, I was half-expecting you to reply in the negative considering your original post included considerations of how significance is not necessarily tied to belief of the testimony:

  "I thought that if different jurors couldn't agree on the significance of a testimony, that would leave some of the jurors to conclude that what Tagowa had to say, even if true, was trivial, or didn't matter in the grand scheme of things so these particular jurors wouldn't convict based on it."

  But if we hold that position, we have to consider how it affects the argument. It's a flaw question, which means these premises don't necessarily (or don't at all) lead to this conclusion -- meaning each juror could have believed T's testimony. It could be a logical fallacy or a poisonous assumption.

  T thinks P is guilty.
  T testified but we haven't seen it.

  P found not guilty

  Some of the jurors did not believe T's testimony.

  When everything goes right, we see that a major assumption has been made (AC A). But things go wrong sometimes and that's where eliminating bad ACs saves us. If we eliminate all ACs, we know something went wrong and we can skip and return.

  You eliminated A-D, reached E, thought that the significance given to T's testimony could vary independently of belief of that testimony. You also thought that the the verdict must be not-guilty barring a unanimous guilty verdict, which means we have either a unanimous not guilty verdict or a split jury (using your bad assumption). And this is the critical moment of BR for this question because I think you originally pinned your error on lack of outside info and that's bad because it hides the gaps in your reasoning. You could have eliminated E even with all the info/assumptions you were working with.

  So how does introducing significance disagreement point to the flaw here? The problem we run up against is that if we argue that every juror could believe T's testimony (which we have to assume is incriminating unless we choose A) and yet at least some find him not guilty (since we're using the assumption that lack of unanimity means not-guilty), we're left with a paradox that significance disagreement doesn't resolve.
• Logic Gainz Alum Member ⭐

  June 2018 700 karma

  @NotMyName okay okay okay... in short, one must separate belief from significance. We could have a juror who doesn't see the testimony as that significant, but nevertheless, thinks that what the witness said is incriminating to the defendant. On the other hand, we could have another juror who places much significance on the same testimony, but doesn't see the testimony as incriminating. This hypothetical shows that one isn't necessarily related to another, but my reasoning held that they were when I was initially doing this question.

  Do I have this right, or am I still in the Bermuda Triangle somewhere?