Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the Planning Department’s budget increase from $100,000 to $524,000 doesn’t justify the claim that the Planning Department spends five times as much to perform the same duties. No support is provided for this argument.
Notable Assumptions
In order for the author to claim that the budget increase doesn’t mean the Planning Department now spends five times as much to perform the same duties, the author must assume that the Planning Department has taken on new duties or else expanded the scope of its current duties.
A
Departments other than the Planning Department have had much larger budget increases since 2001.
We don’t care about other departments. We care about whether the budget increase for the Planning Department means that department now spends five times as much to perform the same duties.
B
Since 2001, the Planning Department has dramatically reduced its spending on overtime pay.
We don’t care. The Planning Department has increased its budget by 500%, and this doesn’t tell us the department has taken on new duties.
C
In some years between 2001 and this year, the Planning Department budget did not increase.
We don’t care. The fact remains its budget has gone up from $100,000 to $524,000.
D
The budget figures used in the original editorial were adjusted for inflation.
This doesn’t strengthen the author’s argument. We care about whether the Planning Department is doing more work given how much it now spends.
E
A restructuring act, passed in 2003, broadened the duties of the Planning Department.
The Planning Department’s 500% budget increase has been accompanied by expanded duties. Thus, the Planning Department certainly isn’t spending five times as much to do the same duties as before.
Summary
When jury instructions were given in technical jargon, jury verdicts tended to match the judge’s own opinions. Juries observed the judge’s nonverbal behavior. When jury instructions were given in clear, nontechnical language, verdicts were more likely to conflict with the judge’s opinion.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
When juries are instructed in ways that involve technical jargon, they are likely to be influenced by their perception of the judge’s opinions about the case.
If we want to minimize the chance that a jury will be influenced by their perception of the judge’s opinion of the case, we should have jury instructions delivered in nontechnical language.
If we want to minimize the chance that a jury will be influenced by their perception of the judge’s opinion of the case, we should have jury instructions delivered in nontechnical language.
A
Technical language tends to be more precise than nontechnical language.
Unsupported. Nothing in the stimulus supports judgments about the level of precision of technical language or nontechnical language.
B
A person’s influence is proportional to that person’s perceived status.
Unsupported. The stimulus doesn’t contain any examples of people with different level of perceived status. And the judges’ influence on jury verdicts wasn’t connected to the judges’ perceived status.
C
Nonverbal behavior is not an effective means of communication.
Unsupported. We don’t know whether judges were trying to communicate anything through nonverbal behavior or whether they were successful. It’s possible such behavior was very effective in conveying the judges’ opinions to juries.
D
Real trials are better suited for experimentation than are mock trials.
Unsupported. The stimulus involved a mock trial. We don’t have any comparison to a real trial or whether a real trial would have been more effective for experimentation.
E
The way in which a judge instructs a jury can influence the jury’s verdict.
Strongly supported. Instructions in technical jargon produced verdicts that were more likely to mirror the judge’s opinions. One plausible causal mechanism that accounts for this is that the juries focused more on the judges’ nonverbal behavior.