#25 - Concept Reference, Weaken

[reop6780]

#25)

How is answer B weakening author's suggestion?
Isn't it enough to know the impact of a jury? (why is it important to know the impact of groups?)



I have never struggled this much with RC... I feel like I should start studying all over again how to attack RC...

[reop6780]

My question relies on that line of 43 actually, "person or group." (Yes, it does mention it! And, that's why it's confusing )

I do realize that jury is a group of individuals (juror).

And, still I do not understand how current models' failure not to hold for decisions by groups (not a group or a jury, but multiple jury) necessarily weaken the author's suggestion.

I thought the research being helpful for decision made by a jury or multiple jurors should be enough.

When I read answer B, I regarded "individuals" as jurors and therefore a jury, and "groups" as multiple jury that I thought excessive numbers for the research.

As the stimuli mentioned, the research is helpful for "person or group" which I thought they are meant to be "juror and jury."

If I take "groups" in answer B as simply "jury" not necessarily "multiple jury," I still struggle due to the complete change of statement of stimuli.

(Can the correct answer change its previous statement in stimuli from helpful for "group," and NOT for "group" in the answer if "groups" are meant to be a "group" in the stimuli?)

[Ron Gore]

Hi Reop!

This passage is very interesting, because it deals with a situation trial lawyers routinely experience. The author's suggestion about the use of the current psychological research in the courtroom is very appealing, but it is also very uncertain.

Notice the language beginning in line 37: "suggests," "likely to make," and "may provide the courts." The author is saying that this research is new, and that the limits of the data are not fully known. While it may be the case that these patterns of human decision-making can provide the courts with a guide to evaluating the effect of evidence on the jury's inferential processes, that is only a possibility.

Answer choice (B) undermines the author's suggestion about the use of the research by removing some of the uncertainty regarding the reliability of applying the data to groups rather than individuals. Certainly, the author presents as a fact in lines 42-44 that cognitive psychologists can describe the kinds of inferential errors a person or group is likely to make. But this is not the same as saying that the courts necessarily can then take that description and reliably use it to evaluate the effect of evidence in certain situations.

Answer choice (B) does not change the facts presented in the passage. Instead, it plays on the difference between "describing the kinds of errors a person or group is likely to make" and "evaluating the effect of evidence on the reliability of a jury's inferential processes." If the current models "do not hold" (in the parallel context of individuals: "do not apply reliably) for groups, then although the data can describe the kinds of inferential errors the jury is likely to make, the models will not be able to provide the courts with a guide to evaluating the effect of evidence on the reliability of the jury's inferential processes in certain situations.

Please let me know if this helps.

Thanks,

Ron

[reop6780]

It helped me incredibly! Thank you