Anti-supported. The author actually claims that hung juries usually happen when neither side has given completely convincing evidence. The author also claims that hung juries show that jurors are taking their job seriously, not that jurors are using bad judgement.

Unsupported. This passage is focused on the unanimity requirement in juries; other flaws of the criminal justice system aren’t addressed, so we don’t know what the author thinks about this claim.

Unsupported. The author does say that jury trials are rare, but this is not used to support the claim that any flaws in the jury system are insignificant. The entire passage is about how the unanimity requirement is important, so we can infer that the author disagrees with the claim that any flaws in the jury system are insignificant.

This is supported. The author thinks that the benefits of the unanimity requirement outweigh the costs of hung juries. The author also claims that hung juries show that jurors are taking their job seriously.

Unsupported. The author actually says that hung juries usually happen when neither side has given completely convincing evidence. Also, the unanimity requirement ensures that all jurors’ opinions are heard.