Self-study
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
26.
It can be inferred, based ██ █████ ███████ ████ ███ ████████████ ███████ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ █████ ██ █████████ ██ ████ █████████ ██ ███ ████████████ ███████ ███████ █ ███ ███████ ██ █████████████
a
"Negative Effects of ████ ████████████
██████████ ███████ ██ ████ ██ ███ █████
The first title is about the negative effects of something, and the second title is about how much of that thing will trigger those negative effects. This isn’t a match for passage A or passage B. The point of passage A isn’t that independent research has negative effects; it’s that independent research is sometimes okay for trial judges. And passage B isn’t about the point at which independent research becomes bad; it’s about how appellate judges should simply outright avoid it.
b
"Salt Can Be ██████████ ███ ████ ███████
███████ ████ ████ █████ ████████ ██████ █████ █████
The first title says that something can be okay for one subset of people, while that same thing should be avoided by another subset. This is a match for passage A and passage B. Passage A is about how independent research can be okay for trial judges, while passage B is about how independent research should be avoided by appellate judges.
c
"Debunking the Alleged ██████ █████ ██ █████
█████████████ ████████ ███████ ██ ███ ██████ ███████ ██ ████ ████████████
The first title is about countering a position held by others (salt’s not actually dangerous), and the second title calls the first title into question (we don’t know if salt is dangerous). The first title is an okay match for passage A, which counters the position that trial judges should never conduct independent research. But the second title isn’t a match for passage B. The author of passage B doesn’t say we’re not sure whether trial judges should do independent research; he says appellate judges definitely shouldn’t do such research.
d
"Substitutes for Dietary █████
█████ ███████████ ████ █████ █████
The first title is simply about the existence of something (salt substitutes), and the second title is about how some people criticize that thing. This isn’t a match for passage A or passage B. Passage A isn’t just about the existence of independent research; it’s a recommendation that it’s sometimes okay for trial judges to do such research. And passage B isn’t just about how there are criticisms of independent research; it’s a direct recommendation to not allow such research by appellate judges.
e
"The Health Effects ██ ████ ████████████
█████ ██████████ ██ █ ██████ ███████████
The first title is about the effects of something, and the second is a study of a sample population that gets too little of that thing. This isn’t a match for passage A or passage B. Passage A isn’t just about the effects of independent research; it’s an argument for why such research is sometimes okay for trial judges. And passage B isn’t a study of a sample population of judges who don’t do enough independent research; it’s an argument for why certain judges should avoid independent research altogether.