#3 - Lawyer: Juries are traditionally given their

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

StrengthenX. The correct answer choice is (D)

The lawyer quoted here discusses jury instructions, which have traditionally been delivered in
sophisticated and “legalistic” language. This has been the custom for the sake of greater precision,
but being more precise is of little value, the lawyer points out, if the jury doesn’t actually
comprehend the language used. Since the jury’s basic understanding of its own role is more
important than attaining a precise understanding of that role, the author draws the conclusion that
simpler language should be used in the presentation of jury instructions, so that they are easier to
understand:

• Premise: Jury instructions have traditionally been phrased in convoluted legal language
  for the sake of precision.
  
  Premise: The jury’s basic understanding of its role is more important than attaining
  such precision.
  
  Conclusion: Jury instructions should be phrased more comprehensibly.

The stimulus is followed by a Strengthen Except question, so the four incorrect answer choices
will all strengthen the author’s argument, and the correct answer choice will not. Specifically, the
four incorrect answer choices will bolster the argument that jury instructions should indeed be
more straightforward, most likely by pointing out evidence of the detrimental effects of convoluted
jury instructions, or by highlighting advantages of a shift to more simply worded instructions. The
correct answer choice will be the only one that does not provide support for the author’s conclusion.

Answer choice (A): If, as this choice provides, the majority of jurors find convoluted language more
confusing than simpler language, this would strengthen the author’s case for simpler language. Since
this choice strengthens the author’s argument, it cannot be the correct answer to this Strengthen
Except question.

Answer choice (B): This choice provides that for the majority of jurors, convoluted legalistic
language does not sufficiently convey the role of the jury. This choice strengthens the author’s
argument that complicated language should be made simpler. Since this choice strengthens the
author’s argument, it must be one of the four incorrect answer choices to this Strengthen Except
question.

Answer choice (C): If the role of jurors can be adequately described using simpler, more easily
understandable language, this would strengthen the author’s argument that simpler language
should be used in jury instructions to avoid incomprehensibility. Since this choice does strengthen
the author’s argument, it should be eliminated as one of the four incorrect answer choices to this
Strengthen Except question.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. If simple language cannot precisely relay
the role of the jury, this could weigh against the author’s argument for simpler instructions. In any
case, because this is the only choice that does not strengthen the case for more simply worded jury
instructions, it is the correct answer to this Strengthen Except question.

Answer choice (E): The author argues that precision is not as important as achieving general
understanding of the jury’s role. If, as this choice provides, jurors do not need to know the precise
details for an adequate understanding of their role, this would strengthen the author’s argument for
simpler but less precise phrasing. Since this choice strengthens the author’s argument, it must be one
of the four incorrect answers to this Strengthen Except question.

[jwheeler]

The stimulus specifically states that it's more important to have basic understanding of the role, as opposed to having "the details of that role to be precisely specified". I took this to mean that it wasn't necessary for the jurors to have that complete precision of the detail of their role (something that D states can't happen with simple, easily comprehensible language), but that even if they weren't precise, their understanding could be basic enough to do the trick. Can you explain where my misinterpretation is?

[James Finch]

Hi J. Wheeler,

You're correct in that it's not necessary to be specified with complete precision, so not being able to do so doesn't by itself weaken or invalidate the argument. Instead, what does it do? Ultimately nothing, as it's irrelevant. As this is a Strengthen-Except question, all of the answer choices will strengthen the argument except the correct one, which will either weaken it or, as in this case, do nothing to it. So (D) is the correct answer by virtue of being irrelevant.

Hope this clears things up!