LSAT 146 | Section 4 | Reading Comprehension: Q5

RC Question 5 Explanation

DISCUSSION: This question annoys me for two reasons:

1. The correct answer is directly in the passage. E is stated in lines 18-22. Yet the question tries to trap you by making you waste time on answers A–D.
2. Answers A-C are all about what’s “rare” or “unlikely” regarding trials in general. But jury nullification itself is rare.

So letters A–C are really bad traps. Because they refer to wrong things. For example:

• Bad Objection: Prosecutors rarely bring trivial cases to trial. Less than 5% of cases!
• Author B’s Reply: I agree. And in those 5% of cases, nullification is justified. I wasn’t saying we should nullify 100% of verdicts.

A–C utterly fail to address passage B’s argument. They’re terrible answers because of their poor use of “rare” and “unlikely”. But if you aren’t focussed on the quantity words they may seem tempting because the concepts are relevant.

So watch out. You have to consider answers as a whole, and not just focus on the bits that seem helpful.

___________

1. This isn’t a good reply. This is like saying “people rarely do things they think are stupid.” Yet people nonetheless do stupid things!
    
   Prosecutors can likely bring trivial cases to trial without realizing the cases are trivial.
2. Not a strong reply. The jury could still judge a case to be trivial despite how it was presented.
    
   Also, “unlikely” is not a strong reply. It could mean that, say, 95% of cases are made to seem non-trivial.
    
   But the author of passage B might only claim that 5% of prosecutions are trivial, and those are the ones that should be nullified.
3. This isn’t a good criticism. In lines 57-61, the author of passage B makes clear that juries must be in agreement in order to nullify.
    
   So it’s true that in most cases juries could lack agreement. But nullification is rare, so agreement could happen sometimes even if it usually doesn’t.
4. Nullification isn’t about the strengths and weaknesses of a case. In nullification, the defendant is guilty. Beyond a doubt. The judge instructs the jury “you must convict” (lines 1-3). Nullification is about deciding that despite the strength of the case, conviction would be unjust.
5. CORRECT. The passage directly states this: juries can’t know the details of past convictions because they’re inadmissible.. See lines 18-22. Yet past convictions could explain why a prosecutor brings forward a case on a seemingly trivial offense.