LSAT 130 – Section 1 – Question 04

LSAT 130 - Section 1 - Question 04

September 2009

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

Target time: 0:53

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
PT130 S1 Q04
+LR
Most strongly supported +MSS
Principle +Princ
Causal Reasoning +CausR
Rule-Application +RuleApp
A
1%
152
B
2%
156
C
1%
156
D
0%
162
E
96%
164
120
130
140
 +Easiest 147.03 +SubsectionMedium

At mock trials in which jury instructions were given in technical legal jargon, jury verdicts tended to mirror the judge’s own opinions. Jurors had become aware of the judge’s nonverbal behavior: facial expressions, body movements, tone of voice. Jurors who viewed the same case but were given instruction in clear, nontechnical language, however, were comparatively more likely to return verdicts at odds with the judge’s opinion.

Summary
When jury instructions were given in technical jargon, jury verdicts tended to match the judge’s own opinions. Juries observed the judge’s nonverbal behavior. When jury instructions were given in clear, nontechnical language, verdicts were more likely to conflict with the judge’s opinion.

Strongly Supported Conclusions
When juries are instructed in ways that involve technical jargon, they are likely to be influenced by their perception of the judge’s opinions about the case.
If we want to minimize the chance that a jury will be influenced by their perception of the judge’s opinion of the case, we should have jury instructions delivered in nontechnical language.

A
Technical language tends to be more precise than nontechnical language.
Unsupported. Nothing in the stimulus supports judgments about the level of precision of technical language or nontechnical language.
B
A person’s influence is proportional to that person’s perceived status.
Unsupported. The stimulus doesn’t contain any examples of people with different level of perceived status. And the judges’ influence on jury verdicts wasn’t connected to the judges’ perceived status.
C
Nonverbal behavior is not an effective means of communication.
Unsupported. We don’t know whether judges were trying to communicate anything through nonverbal behavior or whether they were successful. It’s possible such behavior was very effective in conveying the judges’ opinions to juries.
D
Real trials are better suited for experimentation than are mock trials.
Unsupported. The stimulus involved a mock trial. We don’t have any comparison to a real trial or whether a real trial would have been more effective for experimentation.
E
The way in which a judge instructs a jury can influence the jury’s verdict.
Strongly supported. Instructions in technical jargon produced verdicts that were more likely to mirror the judge’s opinions. One plausible causal mechanism that accounts for this is that the juries focused more on the judges’ nonverbal behavior.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 130 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply