LSAT 142 – Section 4 – Question 17

LSAT 142 - Section 4 - Question 17

December 2014

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Target time: 1:11

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question QuickView	Type	Tags	Answer Choices	Curve	Question Difficulty	Psg/Game/S Difficulty	Explanation
PT142 S4 Q17	+LR	Method of reasoning or descriptive +Method Conditional Reasoning +CondR Net Effect +NetEff	A 1% 153 B 10% 159 C 7% 163 D 4% 159 E 78% 165	128 144 160	+Medium	147.564 +SubsectionMedium

Under the legal doctrine of jury nullification, a jury may legitimately acquit a defendant it believes violated a law if the jury believes that law to be unjust. Proponents argue that this practice is legitimate because it helps shield against injustice. But the doctrine relies excessively on jurors’ objectivity. When juries are empowered to acquit on grounds of their perceptions of unfairness, they too often make serious mistakes.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position

The author implicitly concludes that proponents of jury nullification are wrong. He supports this by claiming that jury nullification depends too much on jurors’ objectivity and that juries too often make serious mistakes when deciding to acquit based on perceived unfairness.

Describe Method of Reasoning

The author undermines the proponents of jury nullification by pointing out that the doctrine has negative consequences— overreliance on jurors’ objectivity and a tendency for juries to make serious mistakes based on perceived unfairness.

attacking the motives of the proponents of the doctrine

The author never attacks the motives of the proponents of jury nullification. He just undermines their position by pointing out negative consequences of the doctrine.

identifying an inconsistency within the reasoning used to support the position

The author doesn’t point out any inconsistencies in the proponents’ reasoning. He just points out the consequences of their position.

attempting to show that a premise put forward in support of the position is false

The proponents’ premise is that jury nullification is legitimate “because it helps shield against injustice.” The author never argues that this is false, and we can’t presume that his argument implies that it’s false. Instead, he highlights negative consequences of the doctrine.

presenting a purported counterexample to a general claim made by the doctrine’s proponents

The author never presents a counterexample to the proponents’ claim. He just presents consequences of jury nullification.

arguing that the application of the doctrine has undesirable consequences

The author undermines the proponents’ conclusion by arguing that the application of the doctrine has undesirable consequences— overreliance on jurors’ objectivity and a tendency for juries to make serious mistakes based on perceived unfairness.

LSAT 142 – Section 4 – Question 17

LSAT 142 - Section 4 - Question 17

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 142 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Leave a Reply Cancel