PT130.S1.Q4 > Question

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 Question 26

SECTION 2 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7

PASSAGE 2

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 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · lr

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.

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.

Unsupported. Nothing in the stimulus supports judgments about the level of precision of technical language or nontechnical language.

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.

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.

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.

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.

PrepTest 130 - Section 1 - Question 4

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action