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

[biskam]

where oh where can I find support for A???? I chose E instead given lines 8-14... please help!!

[biskam]

never mind... so aggravating that the support is found on the LAST line comprised of one word... "lawyers.."

They really do love to test info from the first 5 and last 5 lines

[Blueballoon5%]

I chose answer choice C. I kind of understand why answer choice A is right, since the very last sentence of the passage refers to this inference, but I thought answer choice A was too extreme. I don't really understand why answer choice C is wrong, since the passage seemed to imply in the last paragraph that lawyers and judges both are an equal footing when it comes to their approach.

[Brook Miscoski]

Blueballoon,

When the passage delivers a smackdown, it's okay to pick a choice that acknowledges it. The passage calls lawyers primitive. Unsophisticated is an upgrade! Choosing (A) is completely acceptable.

Aside from the fact that (A) best captures the passage's bluntly negative viewpoint about lawyers, (C) is wrong for two reasons. First, the comparison in the passage was between attorneys and psychologists, not between attorneys and judges. Second, the passage treats jurors, not judges, as the ones making inferences.

[dimi.wassef@yahoo.com]

Could someone explain to me why E is wrong? Thank you!

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Sure thing Dimi.

In order for answer choice (E) to be correct, we would need to find information in the passage that supports the idea that lawyers are unrealistic about the ability of jurors to ascertain the truth. Let's look at what the passage says both about lawyers and about the juror's ability to ascertain the truth.

In the first paragraph, we see that lawyers call the process of making inferences is "fact-finding." In the final paragraph, the author describes how judges (who are usually lawyers) are aware of the possibility of inferential errors. Finally, it mentions that compared to psychologists lawyers have a more primitive understanding of cognition.

Regarding the jury's ability to ascertain the truth, the first paragraph tells us that sometimes inferential errors can distort the truth. The passage goes on in the second paragraph to give examples of these types of errors.

None of that suggests that lawyers are unrealistic about the jury's ability to ascertain the truth. In fact, we don't even know that lawyers want the jury to ascertain the truth, so much as they want the jury to believe their side of the story. Answer choice (E) is wrong because it just isn't describing what we see in the passage.

Answer choice (A) is pretty well reflected in the end of the final paragraph.

Hope that helps!