#25 - In ancient Greece, court witnesses were not

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Strengthen. The correct answer choice is (C)

In ancient Greece, this stimulus tells us, there was no cross-examination of witnesses, and juries
were given no legal guidance, so it was imperative for litigants to make a good impression on the
jury. Based on this, the author concludes that courtroom records of litigants’ testimony provide good
sources of data on the Greek culture’s common perceptions of morality during that era.

The question stem asks for the answer choice that would most strengthen the argument contained in
the stimulus. The correct answer choice will bolster the claim that the referenced courtroom oratory
would provide an accurate reflection of cultural perceptions of morality at the time.

Answer choice (A): This answer choice links personality with jurors’ preferences. If jurors were
impressed by those whose personalities they preferred, this would provide incentive for litigants to
be personable, but not necessarily to reflect common cultural perceptions of morality, so this answer
choice should be eliminated.

Answer choice (B): It would seem likely that jurors would apply closer scrutiny to the morals of
litigants than others might. Such a belief on the part of a litigant (that his or her moral codes would
be under closer scrutiny by juries) might provide incentive for that litigant to try to reflect strong
moral values, but would not necessarily lead that litigant to profess moral beliefs which reflect those
of the society—the societal morals may not have been the same as those appreciated by juries or
aspired to by litigants of the time.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. If the belief was that jurors were likely to
be more impressed by morals similar to their own, this would provide incentive for those litigants to
reflect the personal moral code of the jurors, and, more generally, of that society. This strengthens
the conclusion that litigants’ courtroom testimony serves as a good source of data for perceptions of
morality in that culture.

Answer choice (D): If the belief was that jurors would be more impressed by litigants of an
economic class similar to their own, courtroom oratory might be a good source of data on the
economic classes of ancient Greek society, but that society’s common conceptions of morality would
not necessarily be reflected.

Answer choice (E): If the belief was that jurors made decisions based on strong legal principles,
litigants would have incentive to base their testimony on the laws of the time, but this would not
necessarily render the courtroom oratory an accurate reflection of that society’s common conceptions
of morality.

[Jkjones3789]

Hello, So by attempting to link that rogue term and eliminated A D and E. Please tell me why its C. I actually picked B. Thank You

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hey Jkjones3789,

You were smart to eliminate (A), (D) and (E) because they don't link up the rogue element in the conclusion back to the premises. To differentiate (B) from (C), you need to understand the argument a bit more closely: the author argues that what litigants said in the courtroom tells us something about the common conceptions of morality in ancient Greece. Why? Because litigants were supposed to make a good impression on the jurors. There is obviously a missing link here: the author must be assuming that the litigants would appeal to juror's common conception of morality. Unfortunately, answer choice (C) makes an irrelevant distinction between jurors and non-jurors: even if litigators believed jurors are more likely to care about morality than non-jurors, that does not mean jurors actually cared about morality. By choosing answer choice (B), you committed a Relativity Flaw, assuming an absolute claim from a comparative one.

If answer choice (C) is true, litigants would have an incentive to discuss morality in their speeches, because they believed jurors would be more impressed by litigants whose moral code resembled their own. Since litigants probably catered to the juror's moral preferences in order to win them over, we can conclude that litigants' courtroom oratory would be a good source of data on the common conceptions of morality held by the citizens.

Does that make sense?

[nikaar]

I see why other answer choices are wrong however it seems to me that answer choice C required that we assume that the jurors' moral code is actually similar to the moral code of the society. But what if that's not the case?

I'll appreciate your reply!

[Francis O'Rourke]

Hi Nikaar!

That is a really good point! If the jurors were a perfect cross-section of society, then I think we can assume they would have a morality very similar to that of the entire society.

However, It may be the case that jurors were only land-owning men over the age of 30. If that is true, then we would not get good data on the morality of ancient Greek society as a whole.

This is a bit out of the scope of the speaker's conclusion. Since the stimulus told us that the jury was selected from "the citizenry," and the speaker made a conclusion about the morality of "the citizens," answer choice (D) would still strengthen that conclusion.

It is extremely likely that there were groups in ancient Greece that were not counted as citizens, whose morality differed greatly from the citizenry. This fact does not impact the stimulus though, since the speaker is only concerned with the aspect of society that can be called "the citizenry." Since the jury was "selected from the citizenry," it is extremely likely that the jury's morality was similar to the morality of the citizenry.

Let us know if this helps!