Klenex wrote:
Civil trials often involve great complexities that are beyond the capacities of jurors to understand. As a result, jurors' decisions in such trials are frequently incorrect. Justice would therefore be better served if the more complex trials were decided by judges rather than juries.
The argument above depends on which of the following assumptions?
What if Justice is not served better even if complex trials are decided by judges rather than by Jurors.
Assumption - this will not happen. Judges are more able than jurors at complex trial.(A) A majority of civil trials involve complexities that jurors are not capable of understanding.
This choice doesn't tell that Judges are capable of understanding civil trials that involve complexities (B) The judges who would decide complex civil trials would be better able to understand the complexities of those trials than jurors are.
In line with our pre thinking. Judges are more able than Jurors at complex trials(C) The judges who would preside over civil trials would disallow the most complex sorts of evidence from being introduced into those trials.
Why would they disallow the most complex sorts of evidence?
What if it is the most important sort of evidence?
Or does disallowing complex evidences make them better at solving complex trials ?
We don't know anything. THIS Choice certainly not helps.(D) Jurors' decisions are frequently incorrect even in those civil trials that do not involve great complexities.
Okay. We knew that Jurors were not capable of understanding complex trials ;they are not even better at trials that do not involve great complexities.
However, this choice doesn't tell why Judges will be better at complex civil trials (E) The sole reason in favor of having juries decide civil trials is the supposition that their decisions will almost always be correct.
Again. This doesn't tell why Judges will be better at complex civil trials. This choices rather weakens the argument.