LSAT 27, Reading Comprehension, Q7, LSATHacks

RC Question 7 Explanation, by LSATHacks

DISCUSSION: The author makes an argument. He thinks we should allow jurors to have pretrial knowledge. His conclusion is on lines 52-58.

___________

1. The author thinks voir dire is not useful. He’s not looking for compromise.
2. Judges and lawyers are already aware that mass media affects court proceedings. That’s why they’re trying to stop it.

   The author wants to change how we select juries for crimes that are covered by the mass media.

3. Lines 52-58 give the author’s solution. He doesn’t want new methods. He wants judges to accept a new definition of the word impartial. Impartial juries can and should include those with pretrial knowledge of the crime.
4. The author is a critic of voir dire.
5. CORRECT. This is the author’s conclusion, from lines 52-58. Judges should stop pretending they can find impartial jurors who know nothing of the crime. Instead, impartial should be redefined to include those who heard about the crime.

Hi, I'm Graeme Blake

Founder of LSAThacks; I scored a 177 on the LSAT.

I created the LSAT Mastery Seminars, which are part of the Ultimate LSAT Prep Bundle

If you like the explanations you're reading I'm 100% confident you'll enjoy the courses. Satisfaction guaranteed.

---------
Updates:

For updates, sign up for my email list. I update whenever I have new posts.