#7 - Global Reference, Must Be True, Purpose/Function

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

The correct answer choice is (E).

Answer choice (A):

Answer choice (B):

Answer choice (C):

Answer choice (D):

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice.

This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!

[dorsaltf]

I struggle with this question because I thought the passage isn't arguing for implementing a specific change, rather shifting our view on what "impartiality" today could mean in the courtrooms.
Can someone please explain why the answer is E and not B?

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Sure thing, dorsaltf.

On these purpose questions, I start by focusing on the main verb in the answer choice. In this case, we are comparing "call attention to" with "argue for." This passage is more than just bringing attention to an issue. I'd say that "call attention to" would well describes the portion of the passage dedicated to the issue of the problems with voir dire. However, that is not the whole passage. The final paragraph of the passage moves forward---it goes beyond just describing issues with the voir dire process. It makes an argument at the end for a new way of thinking about juror impartiality that doesn't rely on juror ignorance. The passage makes an affirmative argument for a solution to the problem.

Answer choice (B) focuses just on the voir dire and media issues. It's too narrow, and the action doesn't represent the strength of the viewpoint in the passage. Answer choice (E) on the other hand matches the issue discussed as well as the author's point in writing the passage.

Hope that helps!

[uncleschaeflit]

(E) just feels like an overreach because there is no change argued for: saying we need to understand "impartiality" differently doesn't entail any actual change in procedure. So since the author pointed out flaws without ever proposing an alternate way to "address" the problem, (B) seemed more supported by the text.

[Adam Tyson]

I think the change is implied in the last paragraph, uncleschaeflit. The author explained that the current approach involves trying to find jurors who are unfamiliar with the details of a case, or to get them to ignore what they have learned. The author is now suggesting that we should instead look for a jury that is made up of people who are informed and who have opinions. They are suggesting that impartiality should not be about individual jurors, but about the collective process undertaken by the entire jury. Although they didn't make specific recommendations for how to do that, it still is an argument. The passage runs through all the problems of the current approach, and ultimately recommends a new way of thinking about the problem, and that could be seen as a new approach.

B is only part of the problem, not the primary purpose. The passage is about much more than just "here's what the media has done." It's really about "here's the current problem with juries, and here's an idea for what we should do about it."

B is also too broad, since the passage limits itself to the issue of juror knowledge and partiality. Nothing else about "court proceedings" is discussed.

[uncleschaeflit]

Fair enough. Thanks for the explanation. Really like your "court proceedings" point. When I get down to 50/50, there is often a single word/phrase that eliminates an answer, as is the case with (b).