Self-paced
Passage A.
P1
███ ██ ████ █████ █████ ██████ ██████ ██████████ ███████████ ████████ ██ ████ ████ ████ ██████████ ███ ██ █████ ██████████ ██ ████ ██ ████████ ███ ███████████ ██████ ██ █████████ ██ ██████ ████████ ████ ███ ███████████ ███ ██████████ ██ ████████ █████████ ██ ███ ████████ ████████ ███████ ████ ██ ████ ██████
Trial court judges oppose independent research ·
They say it distorts the adversarial system and that judges aren't that good at research
P2
█████ █████ ████████ ████ ████ ██████ ████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ ████████ ███████████ ██ ███ █████████ ███
Author's criticism ·
The judges' concerns don't justify an absolute ban on independent research by judges
Support 1 ·
Adversarial system doesn't handle specialized knowledge (like science) well
Independence research for specialized knowledge can help.
P3
███████ █ █████ ████████ █ █████████ ████ ██████ ███ █████████ ███████████ █████████ ████████ ███ ███████████ ██ █ ███████ ████████ ██████████ ████████ ███████████ ████████ ████████████ ██████ ████ █████████ ███ ████████ ████████████ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ███ ███████ ██████ █████ ███ ███████
Support 2 ·
Trial structure reduces possibility of reaching bad research results
Independent research only supplements the parties' evidence.
███████ █
P4
██████████ ██ ████ █████ ██████ ███ ███ █████████ ██████ ██████ ██████ ███
Author's perspective ·
Appellate courts should not do independent research
Trial court judges can do whatever they want. But appellate courts shouldn't do research.
P5
██ █ ███████ █████ █████████ ██████ ██ ███ ████ ████ ██████████ ████ █████ ██████ ████ ████ ██ ███ ████████ █████ █████████ ██ ███ █████ █████ ███ ████████ ██ █ █████████████ ██ ███ ██████ ████ █████████ ███ ██████████████████ ███████ ██████████ ██ ███ █████ ███ ████ █████████ ███
Support ·
Appellate courts don't have important tools for figuring out what's true
Live testimony from experts can help judges understand scientific stuff, and cross-examination of those experts can help discover what's true. Appellate judges don't get these things, since they happen only at the trial level.
P6
██████████ ██████████ ███ ███ █████ ████ ██ ███ █████████ █████ ██ ███
Support ·
Trial courts determine the facts; appellate courts shouldn't intrude on this
P7
████ ██ █████████ █████ ████ ███████ ███ ██████ ██ █████████ ████ ██████ ██ ███████ ███ ████████ ██ █ █████ ██ ███████ ███ ██ ███████████ ███ ███
Support ·
Appellate courts who do research risk reaching bad results; they also shouldn't read stuff that wasn't presented to the trial court
Passage Style
24.
Given the statements about cross-examination ██
a
An absolute prohibition ██ ███████████ ████████ ██ █████ ██████ ██ ███ ██████████
The referenced claim in passage B says that the adversarial structure of cross-examination is a good way to deal with scientific evidence. Nothing about that contradicts author A’s claim that it’s okay for judges to sometimes do independent research. Author B would say sure, expert witnesses can be cross-examined and then trial judges can do independent research too, if they want.
b
The adversarial system ██ ████████████ ██████████ ██ ████████ ███████████ ██████████
Author B would take issue with this claim. He has a positive view of the adversarial system’s ability to deal with scientific evidence by subjecting expert witnesses to cross-examination.
c
Scientific admissibility decisions █████ ████████████ █████████ ████ ██████ ██████
This says that when a judge decides to allow or block certain scientific evidence, it has a downstream effect on what kinds of evidence are allowed in future trials. The referenced claim in passage B says that the adversarial structure of cross-examination is a good way to deal with scientific evidence. There’s nothing contradictory in these two ideas. Author B would say sure, judges can make decisions about what evidence to allow. And then expert witnesses can be cross-examined over the evidence that’s allowed.
d
Erroneous decisions can ██ ███████ ███████ ██ █████ ████████
This isn’t a claim made by author A.
e
A trial provides █ █████████ ████ ██████ ███ █████████ ███████████ █████████
The referenced claim in passage B says that the adversarial structure of cross-examination is a good way to deal with scientific evidence. Nothing about that contradicts author A’s claim that trials put guardrails on independent research. Author B would say sure, expert witnesses can be cross-examined through the course of a trial, and if trial judges want, they do some independent research within the bounds of the trial structure.