#4 - Global Reference, Must Be True, Author's Perspective

[Administrator]

Please post below with any questions!

[dtodaizzle]

For (D), I understand how the author in passage B believes that juries could "interpret" the laws (Jury nullification laws are too broad), but would the author in the passage B believes that juries should also apply the law? When juries nullify a particular law, they are nullifying that law..so nullifying the law also means to "apply the law?" In LR, false equivalency is a flaw that pops up from time to time.

[harvoolio]

I had difficulty with answer D because the two authors disagree whether jury nullification ought to be (normative), not whether jury nullification in fact exists (positive).

If the answer read "it ought to be within the purview of juries not only to apply the law but to interpret it" I would have selected it. Because A would disagree with this and B would agree with it.

But with D reading "it is within the purview of juries not only to apply the law but to interpret it", I felt both authors would agree with the statement because both authors recognize that "jury nullification" in fact does exist. Just that the author of passage A would say that jury nullification ought not to be and hence juries ought not to interpret the law, whereas the author of passage B would say jury nullification ought to be and hence juries ought to interpret of the law.

In other words, A's 3rd paragraph is how jurors are not legislators so when jurors do "jury nullification" i.e. interpret the law bad things happen, but A would not say that juries are presently unable to interpret the law through jury nullification, because A would recognize "jury nullification" exists; A would just sat this is a bad idea and ought not to be.

Did I miss something? Thanks.

[Dave Killoran]

This question asks you to select the choice that the two authors would be most likely to disagree about. So, you must not only understand the view of the author of each passage, you must then apply those views to statements and find one that they would definitively have opposing views on.

The correct answer to this problem is (D), which is typically selected by about 75% of test takers. the key to (D) is that it has two parts, one about application and one about interpretation:

"it is within the purview of juries not only to apply the law but to interpret it."

So, let's focus on each part and see what the author of each passage would say:

• Application: "it is within the purview of juries to apply the law..."
  
  Of the two parts, this is not the decisive one, but let's look at it anyway to better understand how the test makers create answer choices.
  
  • Passage A Author: Interestingly, the author of Passage A does not make an explicit statement on this. So, one interpretation is that the author doesn't state a clear position. However, I believe that an agreement with this belief is conveyed. For example, when in line 1 the author states that, "Jury nullification occurs when the jury acquits the defendant in a criminal case in disregard of the judge’s instructions..." the point about the judge's instructions (of which it would be common knowledge that they include instructions to follow the law) supports that point.
    
    However, as it turns out, the exact position of the author of A on this section of the answer is not critical. In fact, the writers of this passage likely left it a bit unclear simply to create confusion. We'll address this point again a bit later.
    
    Passage B Author: The author here explicitly states her agreement, starting in line 41: "When a jury nullifies because it does not believe a law should be applied to a particular defendant..." and then later in line 49: "Similarly, when a jury nullifies because it believes a law is unjust, it also performs a useful function ..."
  Interpretation: "it is within the purview of juries to interpret it [the law]."
  
  This is the most interesting and, as it turns out, pivotal portion for determining whether this answer is correct or incorrect. The question can be distilled down to: do juries have the right to interpret the law?
  
  • Passage A Author: This author disagrees that juries have the right to interpret the law. First, the author clearly believes that nullification occurs (see the opening three words, for example), but believes that juries shouldn't engage in the process that leads to nullification (namely, interpretation). The argument against interpretation runs throughout the passage, but is most clearly enunciated around line 25: "Third, jurors are not legislators. We have an elected legislature to pass laws and elected or appointed judges to interpret them. The jury is unelected, is unaccountable, and has no obligation to think through the effect an acquittal will have on others."
    
    The bottom line for this author is that nullification exists, and to achieve it, juries interpret the law, and they should not be doing that.
    
    Passage B Author: This author agrees that juries have the right to interpret the law. As with the author of passage A, this author agrees that nullification occurs, but believes that juries do have the right to engage in the interpretation needed to nullify decision. For example, in line 36, the author states, "In such cases, the jury can act as a safety valve and use its own discretion to decide, for example, that a case is too trivial or the circumstances too extenuating for the case to result in a conviction." That section shows the jury making decisions based on their interpretations of the law. Later, around line 50 the author again indicates agreement: "Similarly, when a jury nullifies because it believes a law is unjust, it also performs a useful function," which shows that in conclusion a law is "unjust," interpretation is being performed.

Thus, we have a situation where as to the first part of the answer choice, the authors may agree, or, at worst we don't exactly know the position of the author of A. With respect to the second part of answer choice (D), both authors agree that nullification occurs, and it is in the process of nullification where their disagreement becomes apparent, namely in that A believes the interpretation that occurs along the way is not part of a jury's duty whereas B believes that the interpretation that occurs during nullification is within the scope of a jury's rights.

Note that the question about "ought" to be within the purview vs "is in" their purview wouldn't change the outcome here. Are juries nullifying? Yes. Do they have that right? A says no, B says yes. If you change it to they "ought" to have the right, the answers are still the same.

Please let me know if that helps. Thanks!

[harvoolio]

Dave,

Thank you very much for taking the time to answer my question in such a detailed manner.

I still feel this is a normative versus positive issue in that a necessary assumption of your answer is that the idiom "within the purview of" is defined as “within the rights of” (normative) instead of “within the power or scope of” (positive). So, I agree with your entire analysis that (A) would believe that “nullification exists, and to achieve it juries interpret the law, but should not be doing that.” (i.e. the juries have the power to interpret the law by definition that jury nullification exists, but not the right to do so). I could see (A) saying “It should not be within the purview of juries to interpret the law” (i.e. implicitly recognizing it is within the purview but should not be).

I looked up the idiom “within the purview of” which yields results that could justify either interpretation.
https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/ ... -something
formal within or outside the limits of someone’s job, activity, or knowledge
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/purview
The extent or range of activity, function, power, or competence; scope.

So, (A) would say jury nullification is having juries interpret the law which is, but should not be, within their purview (i.e the range of their activities, functions, powers or competences – by virtue of their nullifying).

Taking several steps back though, I have learned not to get tripped up on language so much especially on easier questions like this one in which 75% got the question right. My prior post was posted on May 10th and up until that point I had averaged 6.7 questions wrong per reading comprehension section — never scoring better than a -6 — on my 3 practice exams. Since May 10th, I have taken 5 diagnostics (PrepTests 72, 74, 75, 76 and 80) and averaged only 3.6 questions wrong per reading comprehension section achieving my best result of -2 today on PrepTest 76.

[Dave Killoran]

Fair enough, and that actually raises another issue that's worth thinking about: regardless of the exact interpretation here, is there any other answer choice that offers the potential to be correct? I'd say not, and thus if one were struggling with this answer and trying to justify it, you could turn it around and ask, what else is better? This goes hand in hand with your point about not getting overly tripped up in language, because ultimately we have to remember this test is made by humans, and so it will never be absolutely perfect from a language standpoint.

Good job today going -2—that is fantastic!

[harvoolio]

Dave,

Thanks. I am applying this concept throughout my different sections. Another example of not getting tripped up on language is the easy question #6 in PrepTest 76 Logical Reasoning 2 about "victim surcharge" and nonviolent/violent crime (lsat/viewtopic.php?t=10947). So, I recognized that the dichotomy of non-serious/serious in answer choice (D) does not perfectly match non-violent/violent in the stimulus, but selected the correct answer (D) anyway because the logic matched the stimulus perfectly and none of the other answer choices were close. Although answer (D) could be used to just paying surcharges for serious non-violent crimes like treason this is not the likely outcome.

On a side note as I type this I am finding humor in listening to you in the Advanced Logical Reasoning course bemoan the non-gratuitous animal suffering that Mary has chosen to forgo which nevertheless I find LSAC has itself described in a gratuitous manner (e.g. "drastic blood loss", "consequences of shock") which LSAC would never do for a small child riding a bicycle.

[Dave Killoran]

On a side note as I type this I am finding humor in listening to you in the Advanced Logical Reasoning course bemoan the non-gratuitous animal suffering that Mary has chosen to forgo which nevertheless I find LSAC has itself described in a gratuitous manner (e.g. "drastic blood loss", "consequences of shock") which LSAC would never do for a small child riding a bicycle.

One of my favorite questions ever! And a classic insight you make about the child as well. We sued to have a question in the course about a child getting hit by a bicycle, and I would always make the point that LSAC had showed some restraint here—at least the child wasn't hit by a truck!

[sherrilynm]

Can someone explain why C is not appropriate as an answer choice?

According to B, "officials can sometimes be overzealous" and "in such cases, the jury can act as a safety valve." The jury is a way to correct bad decisions from officials. So, B would more likely agree with C, given that if C is not true (and juries are even more biased and unreliable), then what would be the point of the jury's nullification process?

However, A is more in favor of letting the elected officials do their thing - "We have an elected legislature to pass laws and elected or appointed judges to interpret them." So A would NOT agree with C.

What am I missing here?

[Daniel Stern]

Be careful not to leap too far from what is supported by the passage.

Sure, Passage B author says officials can "sometimes" be overzealous, but does that mean they are likely to be more biased than jurors?

And I don't think we have any or enough information from Passage A to say that A's author would have disagreed with answer choice C.

I hope that is helpful. Good luck in your studies!
Dan