DISCUSSION: See paragraph 2. Taken as a whole, the author is arguing that laws can be too general. This is because:
- They say legislatures create general laws.
- They say juries are assisting the legislature when they refuse to convict according to these general laws.
If juries are assisting the legislature by refusing to enforce the legislature’s general laws, then that must be mean the laws were too general in this particular case.
Note that this question is a bit more like a logical reasoning question than you’d find on older reading comprehension questions. It’s like a “most strongly supported” question. This continues the trend of RC becoming more LR-like.
- Laws are complicated, but the author never says anything about it. This answer is trying to trick you based on outside assumptions.
- Antiquated means outdated. The author never says some laws are outdated.
- If anything, the author of passage B thinks laws are not permissive enough! After all, they support jury nullification, which reduces the number of convictions.
- Not quite. This is close. The author certainly thinks laws are too broad. But intrusive isn’t the same thing as broad.
A country could only have one law: all citizens must submit to cavity searches once per month. Otherwise they are free to do as they wish.
That would be a rather permissive society. And the law is specific, not broad. But still, the one law on the books would be quite intrusive.
- CORRECT. See paragraph 2, and the explanation above.
Need help with RC? → Try the RC Mastery Seminar
Solve hard passages quickly