PT122.S3.P1.Q1

SECTION 1 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25

SECTION 2 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

SECTION 3 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6

PASSAGE 2

Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13

PASSAGE 3

Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20

PASSAGE 4

Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

SECTION 4 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25

Descriptively accurate but not the main point. This is just context. The author goes on to explain why we should care about this growth in CG displays: because there’s the potential to misuse them. He then suggests a solution: put in guardrails for how lawyers and judges handle them. And when the author of a Problem-Analysis passage recommends a solution, that solution is the main point.

The author does recommend rules to govern the use of CG displays, but he doesn’t suggest that any of those rules involve “the most sophisticated principles of jurisprudence.”

The author does note in P1 that CG displays can help with jury comprehension alongside several other advantages. But that’s just context for why we should care about CG displays. The author doesn’t spend the passage trying to convince us of what will happen. Rather, he argues for what should happen, and why: legal professionals should take certain precautions with CG displays because of the potential for misuse. (Also, the author doesn’t suggest that heightened jury comprehension has the effect of fairer trials.)

Too strong and too narrow. The author doesn’t tell us that any and all disadvantages can be eliminated, and he doesn’t limit his recommendations to only avoiding intentional misuse. He notes that CG displays can also be subject to unintentional misuse, and his recommendations are designed to avoid misuse in general.