RC Question 21 Explanation
DISCUSSION: This question is not asking for something that is true. It’s asking for a principle used in both passages. That’s something the author believes to be true, and which they use to make their argument.
i.e. If I say “You should never forget about food in your fridge past its expiry date”, a principle I’m using might be “It is a waste to let food spoil”.
___________
- This is true based on the two passages, but neither author made a judgement about both types of court. This answer is instead an inference we can draw. But that’s not a “principle” underlying the arguments.
- Passage B was all about how appeals court judges shouldn’t conduct independent research, so this provides no support for the idea that trial court judges should.
- This is a bit indirect, but it’s supported. In passage A, see the final three lines (“supplements, rather than replaces”). This is saying judge’s research at trial doesn’t overrule the lawyers evidence.
To see how this answer applies to passage B, you have to think big picture. The appellate court is not the trial court. So, if the appeals court finds facts, it is indeed “superseding” the evidence the trial judge allowed. Lines 57-59 speak somewhat directly to this. (“Substitutes….questionable research….should have been tested in trial”) - Same as answer B. Questioning of witnesses only happens at trial court. But passage B was only about whether appeals court judges should conduct research (they shouldn’t). So this provides zero support for the idea that trial court judges should conduct research: passage B simply didn’t mention the topic.
You may have picked this because passage B talks about “evidence that should have been tested in trial court” (lines 58-59). This means tested by the judge and lawyers, but it doesn’t mean the judge was doing research. Most testing of evidence is of evidence presented by lawyers. - Passage B says appellate judges shouldn’t conduct research! This contradicts the passage.
Leave a Reply