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

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

The correct answer choice is (C).

Answer choice (A):

Answer choice (B):

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice.

Answer choice (D):

Answer choice (E):

This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!

[lsatstudent2]

Is the author saying impartiality is not an issue?

[Robert Carroll]

lsatstudent2,

Not at all. The author, in the last sentence of the passage, thinks that impartiality is still attainable even when jurors already have some existing knowledge of, and even opinions about, the case on which they'll serve as jurors. The sentence right before that also indicates that the author considers impartiality to be a desirable trait of juries. The author simply disagrees with those who think exposure to mass media reporting will inherently disrupt the impartiality of a jury.

Robert Carroll

[cnbauer]

Why is A not the answer here?

My thinking was that the voir dire system is flawed because:
1. the system is flawed in that:
-people can hide their prejudices
- others can lie and say that they are biased to avoid jury duty
2. This still doesn't solve the fact that people underestimate how much they're biased in a case.

Because this system is incapable of doing what it's intended to do, the author doubts the ability of juries to render impartial decisions. Is the problem with (A) that it isn't guarded enough/is irrelevant? The ultimate cause of juries being biased is the mass media, with the voir dire system being one way in which the courts try to make up for it.

Thanks in advance!

[Luke Haqq]

Hi cnbauer!

For answer choice (A), the material in the final paragraph is key, especially around lines 51 to 58.

For example, we're told in the final sentence of the passage that "Impartiality does not reside in the mind of any one juror; it instead results from a process of deliberation among the many members of a panel of informed, curious, and even opinionated people" (lines 55-58). So the author is conceding that jurors can be opinionated while still retaining jury impartiality as the author understands it. Thus (A) is not a statement with which the author would agree, since the author still sees possibility for impartiality.

[Noelfranco]

Hello,

I am just curious why answer choice (E) is not a likely contender. I found myself torn between C and E but ended up picking E because the author characterized the belief in E as "generally believed" in the first paragraph. Did I err in assuming the author agreed with that?

Thank you!

[Amber Thomas]

Hi Noelfranco!

While the author does state that it is "generally believed that people who know the facts of a case are more likely than those who do not to hold an opinion about the case," keep in mind the context. The author is setting up his argument by explaining how mass media can potentially influence criminal trials, and how judges/courts have worked to counteract said influence. Therefore, this does not necessarily indicate that the author agrees with this general belief.

With respect to Answer Choice C, the author spends the entire last paragraph explaining that although it may be impossible to prevent jurors from having prior knowledge about high profile cases, this does not necessarily have to negatively impact the trial/violate impartiality. It is the main point of his argument, therefore, we know that he would agree with this statement.

I hope this helps!

[Noelfranco]

Hi Noelfranco!

While the author does state that it is "generally believed that people who know the facts of a case are more likely than those who do not to hold an opinion about the case," keep in mind the context. The author is setting up his argument by explaining how mass media can potentially influence criminal trials, and how judges/courts have worked to counteract said influence. Therefore, this does not necessarily indicate that the author agrees with this general belief.

With respect to Answer Choice C, the author spends the entire last paragraph explaining that although it may be impossible to prevent jurors from having prior knowledge about high profile cases, this does not necessarily have to negatively impact the trial/violate impartiality. It is the main point of his argument, therefore, we know that he would agree with this statement.

I hope this helps!

Hi Amber,

Thank you very much! This makes much more sense now.