Free LSAT Test Exam Braindumps
Law School Admission Test: Logical Reasoning, Reading Comprehension, Analytical Reasoning Questions 469–473 (page: 95)

Editorial: Despite the fact that recent military success has made the prime minister personally popular, her party will lose the next election unless the economy is no longer in recession; the electorate will blame the state of the economy on her, even though she is hardly responsible for it and her policies will be beneficial in the long run.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the editorial's argument depends?

Administrator: Every first-year business student is enrolled in Economics 101. No first-year business student is a double major. Therefore, no one enrolled in Economics 101 is a double major.

The flawed pattern of reasoning in the administrator's argument is most similar to that in which one of the following arguments?

There are no truly domesticated elephants. In order for an animal to be domesticated, some of its overt characteristics must stem from selective breeding. However, when elephants have been bred as work animals, they have never been selectively bred; instead, they have been released to breed with elephants in wild herds.

The argument's conclusion can be properly inferred if which one of the following is assumed?

Jurors are required to base their verdicts exclusively on the evidence presented to them at trial, since outside information may violate the substantive norms embodied in the rules of evidence ­ for example, that hearsay is unreliable, and that evidence should be subjected to the adversarial processes of cross-examination and rebuttal. Accordingly, courts have historically admonished jurors against conducting outside research. Some degree of noncompliance has always been a problem ­ albeit a minor one ­ with stray jurors looking up ambiguous terms in dictionaries or visiting accident scenes, for instance. Today, however, the Internet has made that problem dramatically worse. In a recent high-profile trial, 75 percent of the jurors were discovered to have independently conducted their own Internet research on the trial.

Responses to the ubiquity of Internet-based outside research have varied. Courts have, for example, tried confiscating mobile phones or banning their use during trial ­ an unpopular measure ineffectual against research conducted during after-trial hours. Other courts have tried amending their boilerplate juror admonitions to explicitly mention Internet research. But such amendments overlook the fact that many jurors do not realize that conducting Internet searches for the names of the defendants constitutes obtaining evidence, rather than being a mere benign manifestation of the unconscious habit of looking up something about which one is curious. Using even more explicit instructions ­ as one judge does, enjoining jurors not to "read about the subject matter or parties of the case on blogs, Internet news sites, or social media" ­ faces an important obstacle: Even jurors who fully understand the scope of impermissible research may be motivated to conduct their own investigations by a sense that it is their moral duty to conduct independent investigations before rendering a decision. Some jurors believe that, despite the judge's legal instructions, they have a higher duty to arrive at a fair judgment using all facts obtainable by any means whatsoever. A complete solution to the problem of jurors' independent investigations must address, therefore, jurors' perceived "moral duty" to render verdicts based on complete information.

Rather than discourage jurors' sense of moral duty, courts should strive to redirect it, educating jurors as to the powerful reasons why it is their duty to avoid, rather than seek out, outside information. In particular, preliminary instruction, now dedicated only to admonishing jurors as to what behavior is prohibited, should be used to explain to jurors why their access to information is limited, and to persuade jurors that not all information is helpful, and that some is positively unhelpful, to their decision-making process. Otherwise, jurors' sense of moral duty will continue to be misdirected, and restrictions on accessing information will continue to be perceived as, at best, a set of arbitrary rules and, at worst, a subversion of justice.

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main point of the passage?

To ensure that their verdicts are based on reliable information, jurors should refrain from using the Internet to conduct outside research.

Jurors are required to base their verdicts exclusively on the evidence presented to them at trial, since outside information may violate the substantive norms embodied in the rules of evidence ­ for example, that hearsay is unreliable, and that evidence should be subjected to the adversarial processes of cross-examination and rebuttal. Accordingly, courts have historically admonished jurors against conducting outside research. Some degree of noncompliance has always been a problem ­ albeit a minor one ­ with stray jurors looking up ambiguous terms in dictionaries or visiting accident scenes, for instance. Today, however, the Internet has made that problem dramatically worse. In a recent high-profile trial, 75 percent of the jurors were discovered to have independently conducted their own Internet research on the trial.

Responses to the ubiquity of Internet-based outside research have varied. Courts have, for example, tried confiscating mobile phones or banning their use during trial ­ an unpopular measure ineffectual against research conducted during after-trial hours. Other courts have tried amending their boilerplate juror admonitions to explicitly mention Internet research. But such amendments overlook the fact that many jurors do not realize that conducting Internet searches for the names of the defendants constitutes obtaining evidence, rather than being a mere benign manifestation of the unconscious habit of looking up something about which one is curious. Using even more explicit instructions ­ as one judge does, enjoining jurors not to "read about the subject matter or parties of the case on blogs, Internet news sites, or social media" ­ faces an important obstacle: Even jurors who fully understand the scope of impermissible research may be motivated to conduct their own investigations by a sense that it is their moral duty to conduct independent investigations before rendering a decision. Some jurors believe that, despite the judge's legal instructions, they have a higher duty to arrive at a fair judgment using all facts obtainable by any means whatsoever. A complete solution to the problem of jurors' independent investigations must address, therefore, jurors' perceived "moral duty" to render verdicts based on complete information.

Rather than discourage jurors' sense of moral duty, courts should strive to redirect it, educating jurors as to the powerful reasons why it is their duty to avoid, rather than seek out, outside information. In particular, preliminary instruction, now dedicated only to admonishing jurors as to what behavior is prohibited, should be used to explain to jurors why their access to information is limited, and to persuade jurors that not all information is helpful, and that some is positively unhelpful, to their decision-making process. Otherwise, jurors' sense of moral duty will continue to be misdirected, and restrictions on accessing information will continue to be perceived as, at best, a set of arbitrary rules and, at worst, a subversion of justice.

The author regards jurors' belief in a higher moral duty to conduct outside research as