LSAT 133 – Section 2 – Question 25

LSAT 133 - Section 2 - Question 25

June 2011

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:02

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
PT133 S2 Q25
+LR
+Exp
Strengthen +Streng
Link Assumption +LinkA
A
4%
157
B
6%
160
C
85%
166
D
3%
157
E
2%
158
142
151
159
 +Medium 147.633 +SubsectionMedium

In ancient Greece, court witnesses were not cross-examined and the jury, selected from the citizenry, received no guidance on points of law; thus, it was extremely important for litigants to make a good impression on the jurors. For this reason, courtroom oratory by litigants is a good source of data on the common conceptions of morality held by the citizens of ancient Greece.

Summarize Argument
The author argues that courtroom speeches by litigants are a good source of information on the common morality of the citizens of ancient Greece. She supports this by saying that the jury was made up of citizens and had no legal guidance and no cross-examination of witnesses. This made it crucial for litigants to impress the jurors.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that because litigants were concerned about making a good impression on the jury, they designed their speeches to reflect the moral beliefs of the jurors. In other words, she assumes that the litigants thought that jurors were impressed by oratory that appealed to the jurors’ own morality.
By concluding that these speeches are a good source of data on the common morality of citizens in ancient Greece, she also assumes that jurors’ values were representative of all citizens.

A
Litigants believed jurors were more likely to be impressed by litigants whose personality they preferred.
The author assumes that litigants believed jurors were impressed by litigants who appealed to their moral beliefs, not by litigants whose personality they preferred.
B
Litigants believed jurors were more likely to subject the litigants’ personal moral codes to close critical scrutiny than were people who did not sit on juries.
The author assumes that litigants tried to impress jurors by reflecting the jurors’ moral codes, not by discussing their own personal moral codes. Also, whether jurors scrutinized the litigants more than other people is irrelevant.
C
Litigants believed jurors were likely to be impressed by litigants whose professed moral code most resembled their own.
If litigants believed jurors were impressed by those litigants whose moral views matched their own, it makes sense that litigants’ speeches would reflect jurors' beliefs. Since jurors were selected from citizens, these speeches may indeed reflect common moral views of citizens.
D
Litigants believed jurors to be more impressed by litigants who were of the same economic class as the jurors.
The author assumes that litigants tried to impress jurors by reflecting the jurors’ moral codes. Her argument has nothing to do with the economic class of jurors’ or litigants.
E
Litigants believed jurors were likely to render their decisions based on a good understanding of the law.
The author assumes that litigants tried to impress jurors by appealing to the jurors’ morality. She doesn’t assume that litigants thought that jurors made decisions based on a good understanding of the law.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 133 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply