#26 - Global Reference, Parallel

[Administrator]

Please post below with any questions!

[nrpandolfo]

Hi can you explain why answer B is correct here? What about C?

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi nrpandolfo,

Thanks for the question! It might help, here, to pre-phrase for ourselves the main point (or, really, a possible title for) each passage, so we can compare each answer choice. For Passage A, it might be something like, "In some situations, independent research might be ok to help trial judges." For Passage B, it would be, "Appellate courts should never, ever conduct independent research." Answer B kind of gets at the same thing; salt might be ok for one group, but it's really bad for another group. C doesn't fit because neither of our original passages is debunking potential danger of independent research; Passage A might be more inconclusive, but Passage B is making a very strong argument that the danger is very, very real!

[Kelly R]

Hi PS,

Just want to be sure I correctly eliminated E. Passage B does not suggest that there is a "deficiency" in the independent research conducted in appellate courts, but instead suggests that it ought not be present in appellate courts simpliciter, correct? Thanks.

[Adam Tyson]

I think that's part of it for sure, Kelly. Good work! I also question whether passage A is really about benefits in general, as this answer reflect, but rather only some possible benefits in certain cases, as in answer B.

[dimi.wassef@yahoo.com]

Hello! Could someone explain why D is wrong?

[atierney]

In the manner I always like to answer forum questions, such as this one, D is wrong because B is so clearly correct! It captures the essence of the persuasiveness in both passage A ("Independent research could help judges avoid such errors...") and passage B ("appellate courts should resist the temptation"). It is thus the best answers in both contexts. D however, does not. It is simply the type of headline you might read in on the fifth page of your local newspaper. There is no hint of persuasion there, rather simply a resuscitation of the facts. Thus, it is not the correct answer.

Let me know if you have further questions on this, and I would be happy to further persuade!

[aspiringdefender]

Having gotten down to B and D as contenders, I chose D.
I thought that D was the better answer because it was more clear-cut. Passage A argues that research should not be entirely avoided, while Passage B argues that research should be avoided, paralleling the "clear-cut" nature of answer D.
B, on the other hand, demarcates its subject to "people with high blood pressure" vs "some people". I don't see this kind of demarcation in the passages, so I ruled it out. Am I missing something?

[Jeff Wren]

Hi aspiring,

Whenever you're doing comparative reading passages, you want to really think about exactly how the two passages relate to each other.

Here, Passage A is specifically about trial court judges and whether these judges should ever conduct independent research. Passage A argues that independent research can be beneficial to trial judges in some cases (such as those involving scientific evidence). This perfectly matches the first title in Answer B. "Salt" matches "independent judicial research" and "some people" matches "some cases."

Passage B is specifically about appellate court judges and whether these judges should ever conduct independent research. Passage B argues that appellate court judges should never conduct independent research. Passage B does not weigh in on whether trial judges should ever conduct independent research. In the first sentence of Passage B, the author is clear to make this distinction between trial courts and appellate courts, "regardless of what trial courts may do appellate courts should resist the temptation to conduct independent research of scientific literature" (my emphasis)(lines 30-32).

It's easy to think that the two passages disagree with each other, but they do not. They are actually discussing two separate (but related) issues. Question 27 also tests the idea that Passage B does not take a stance on whether trial judges should conduct independent research. ("Explicit noncommittal" in Answer D accurately describes how the author of Passage B feels about trial judges conducting independent research.)

The second title of Answer B corresponds to Passage B. "People with High Blood Pressure" corresponds to "appellate judges" and "should avoid salt" corresponds to "should not conduct judicial research." You may wonder how/why "People with High Blood Pressure" corresponds to "appellate judges?" The basic idea is that both refer to specific groups that are exceptions to the general rule. Not everyone necessarily needs to avoid salt, but this special group needs to avoid salt. Similarly, not all judges necessarily need to avoid independent research, but appellate judges do.

As for Answer D, even if you assume that "substitutes for salt" corresponds to "independent research," this answer still doesn't match the passages. The first title misses the benefits of independent research, which is a key idea in Passage A. The second title misses that fact that the author of Passage B is not necessarily against all judicial research (i.e. all salt substitutes in this answer), but only the special case of appellate courts.