#21 - Must Be True

[LSATer]

This MBT true question seem so broad. I chose D. I had a hard time narrowing down which solution was most relevant to the passage. Any suggestions?

[Adam Tyson]

Good question, LSATer! Where to start is something that we can all use a little help with.

For me, the place to start is with identifying what we are trying to do based on the question stem. Here, we want to help fix the problem of mistakes based on the improper influence of leading questions.

Next, we need to look to the text to understand what this problem is that we are trying to fix. Leading questions in the pre-trial period of investigation, we are told, tends to have a powerful influence on our memories, such that things that we didn't originally remember and may not have even noticed (like the stop sign) become part of what we believe to be a true memory.

Now we prephrase. How do we fix that? The most obvious solution is probably to either ban all leading questions in every investigation (big challenge there, but we can entertain that hypothetical for our purposes) or else to simply ban all pre-trial investigations. If we don't ask witnesses any questions, we can't lead them into false memories!

As it happens, our answer choices never introduce anything so extreme. Instead, with answer E we get the next best thing - complete and accurate transcripts that might allow us to determine what the witness said before leading questions were asked and compare that to what was said later.

Answer D would be unlikely to solve our problem, but instead might compound it. More and more interviews piled one upon the next, all with potentially leading questions that muck up the witness' recollection so completely that we can no longer believe anything they say! Did they really remember this or that, or has their memory been altered by the questions? Yikes!

Start with the question and be sure you understand what it is asking you to do. Go from there, step by step, and you'll get where you need to go.

Good luck!

[LSATer]

Thank you, Adam! The steps are very helpful. After taking another look, E makes much more sense and I understand why D is wrong.

[Tajadas]

I too struggled between D and E. I essentially regarded them as the same.

I figured D would give the opportunity to collect more info before the trial from the witness, so that way more of that person's thoughts are on the record. Because it's before the trial, what the person says can be used as a check for inconsistencies. The downside would be that these interviews give more opportunities for leading questions and their negative effects.

I figured E would give the opportunity to put more of that person's thoughts on the records, and the record could be used as a check for inconsistencies, too. The downside would be the same. Even though it's an interrogation and lawyers might not be doing the questioning, the passage says this doesn't exclude the possibility of leading questions.

What should I have considered that would have enabled me to distinguish between these two answers? Was it really too much to assume that the interviews in D would put material on the record to double check a person's answers later, as E does? As far as I know, the answers a witness gives to questions posed by a lawyer enter the record, just as the transcript in E would.

[sdb606]

Why is C wrong? Increased nuances would increase the chances of detecting the insertion of a false memory. Using the example in the passage, the author could say that lawyers should be watchful to see if the witness mentions a stop sign.

For E, leading questions could still occur. I would think closer attention to spotting leading questions is a better way of addressing the problem than a partial solution like E. Granted, C will not prevent leading questions either if all sides fail to detect them. So why does C's uncertainty make it a worse answer than E's uncertainty?

[sdb606]

I'm going to answer my own question. Both C and E are uncertain but since this is a MBT question, we cannot make inferences about non-leading questions in C because we don't know how the author feels about them. Maybe increased attention to all responses leadging and non-leading would slow down courtroom proceedings too much for it to be worth it...idk.

With E, lawyers could scour the recordings for signs of leading questions, just like they could in C but arguably even better because recordings can be rewound.

[Henry Z]

I chose (D) because I thought (E) is actually irrelevant here: since the leading questions can be unintentional and the effects subconscious, how can anyone, either the questioner or the questionee, not to mention the judge or the juror, realize which question is a leading question and if it alters the witness' memory. For example, take the example from the passage, “How fast was the car going when it passed the stop sign?”, even with the transcript, we still don't know if the witness really saw a sign or was led to believe he saw a sign.

In contrast, (D) at least offers an opportunity to balance the effects of leading questions: If both sides get to ask, their effects on the witness's testimony may well cancel each other out. It may alter even more details in the witness' memory, but the point is to "increase the justice system’s ability to prevent leading questions from causing mistaken court decisions", and the measure does seem to increase and fairness, thus prevent mistaken decisions based on some one-sided testimony manipulated by leading questions. Or say the court may still have unfair decisions, but less likely because of leading questions.

I feel all the answer choices are bad but (D) is the least bad one for me.

[Adam Tyson]

SBT - you may be missing a big problem with answer C, and that is that it focuses only on those questions asked in the courtroom. But the passage tells us those are already very limited, and the real problem comes from the leading questions asked outside the courtroom, during the investigation, which tend to implant false memories that the witness may then "recall" during testimony in court. We need to do more than just pay attention in the courtroom!

Henry - see my explanation earlier in this thread about how answer D could make the situation worse. At least in answer E we can see which questions were leading (like the stop sign example - we would see whether the witness had already said they saw a stop sign, or if that question was leading them to that conclusion), and perhaps address the possible false memories implanted thereby. For example, "you said the car was going very fast when it went past the stop sign, but did you actually see a stop sign? Think carefully about that now, please." Or, perhaps even better, lawyers could ask that those answers that followed from leading questions be banned from coming into evidence. Shining a little light on the process that is currently shrouded in darkness might be a good way to identify potential problems, which is a good first step towards fixing those problems.