Faced with the problems of insufficient evidence, of conflicting evide

Question

Faced with the problems of insufficient evidence, of conflicting evidence, and of evidence relayed through the flawed perceptual, retentive, and narrative abilities of witnesses, a jury is forced to draw inferences in its attempt to ascertain the truth. By applying the same cognitive tools they have developed and used over a lifetime, jurors engage in the inferential exercise that lawyers call fact-finding. In certain decision-making contexts that are relevant to the trial of lawsuits, however, these normally reliable cognitive tools may cause jurors to commit inferential errors that distort rather than reveal the truth.

Although juries can make a variety of inferential errors, most of these mistakes in judgment involve the drawing of an unwarranted conclusion from the evidence, that is, in reality, it does not prove. For example, evidence that the defendant in a criminal prosecution has a prior conviction may encourage jurors to presume the defendant’s guilt, because of their preconception that a person previously convicted of a crime must be inclined toward repeated criminal behavior. That commonly held belief is at least a partial distortion of reality; not all former convicts engage in repeated criminal behavior. Also, a jury may give more probative weight than objective analysis would allow to vivid photographic evidence depicting a shooting victim’s wounds, or may underestimate the weight of defense testimony that is not delivered in a sufficiently forceful or persuasive manner. Finally, complex or voluminous evidence might be so confusing to a jury that its members would draw totally unwarranted conclusions or even ignore the evidence entirely.

Recent empirical research in cognitive psychology suggests that people tend to commit inferential errors like these under certain predictable circumstances. By examining the available information, the situation, and the type of decision being made, cognitive psychologists can describe the kinds of inferential errors a person or a group is likely to make. These patterns of human decision-making may provide the courts with a guide to evaluating the effect of evidence on the reliability of the jury’s inferential processes in certain situations.

The fact that juries can commit inferential errors that jeopardize the accuracy of the fact-finding process is not unknown to the courts. In fact, one of a presiding judge’s duties is to minimize jury inferential error through explanation and clarification. Nonetheless, most judges now employ only a limited and primitive concept of jury inferential error: limited because it fails to recognize the potential for errors outside certain traditional situations, primitive because it ignores the research and conclusions of psychologists in favor of notions about human cognition held by lawyers.   1 
 1 . Which of the following best explains the main idea of the passage?

(A). When making decisions in certain predictable situations, juries may commit inferential errors that obscure rather than reveal the truth.
(B). The views of human cognition held by psychologists on the one hand and by the legal profession are demonstrably dissimilar.
(C). When confronting powerful preconceptions, particularly shocking evidence, or complex situations, jurors make errors in judgment.
(D). The problem of inferential error by juries is typical of the difficulties with cognitive processes that people face in their everyday lives.
(E). Juries would probably make more reliable decisions if cognitive psychologists, rather than judges, instructed them about the problems inherent in drawing unwarranted conclusions.

2 
 2. Of the following hypothetical reforms in trial procedure, which one would the author be most likely to support as the best way to address the problem of jury inferential error?

(A) a move away from jury trials
(B) the institution of minimum formal educational requirements for jurors
(C) the development of strict guidelines for defense testimony
(D) specific training for judges in the area of jury instruction
(E) restrictions on lawyers’ use of psychological research

3 
 3. In the second paragraph, the author’s primary purpose is to

(A) refute the idea that the fact-finding process is a complicated exercise
(B) emphasize how carefully evidence must be presented in order to avoid jury inferential error
(C) explain how commonly held beliefs affect the Jury’s ability to ascertain the truth
(D) provide examples of situations that may precipitate jury errors
(E) recommend a method for minimizing mistakes by juries

4 
 4. Which one of the following best describes the author’s attitude toward the majority of judges today?

(A) apprehensive about whether they are consistent in their instruction of juries
(B) doubtful of their ability to draw consistently correct conclusions based on the evidence
(C) critical of their failure to take into account potentially helpful research
(D) pessimistic about their willingness to make significant changes in trial procedure
(E) concerned about their allowing the presentation of complex and voluminous evidence in the courtroom

5 
 5. Which one of the following statements, if true, would most seriously undermine the author’s suggestion about the use of current psychological research in the courtroom?

(A) All guidelines about human behavior must take account of variations in the patterns of human decision-making.
(B) Current models of how humans make decisions apply reliably to individuals but do not hold for decisions made by groups.
(C) The current conception of jury inferential error employed by judges has been in use for nearly a century.
(D) Inferential errors can be more easily predicted in controlled situations such as the trial of lawsuits than in other kinds of decision making processes.
(E) In certain predictable circumstances, juries are less susceptible to inferential errors than they are in other circumstances.

6 
 6. It can be inferred from the passage that the author would be most likely to agree with which of the following generalizations about lawyers?

(A) They have a less sophisticated understanding of human cognition than do psychologists.
(B) They often present complex or voluminous information merely in order to confuse a jury.
(C) They are no better at making logical inferences from the testimony at a trial than are most judges.
(D) They have worked to help judges minimize jury inferential error.
(E) They are unrealistic about the ability of jurors to ascertain the truth.

7 
 7. The author would be most likely to agree with which one of the following generalizations about a jury’s decision making process?

(A) The more evidence a jury has, the more likely it is that the jury will reach a reliable verdict.
(B) Juries usually overestimate the value of visual evidence such as photographs.
(C) Jurors have preconceptions about the behavior of defendants that prevent them from making an objective analysis of the evidence in a criminal trial.
(D) Most of the jurors who make inferential errors during a trial do so because they are unaccustomed to having to make difficult decisions based on inferences.
(E) The manner in which evidence is presented to a jury may influence the jury either to overestimate or to underestimate the value of that evidence.

Skywalker18 · Accepted Answer

All correct in 11 mins 10 seconds, including almost 4 mins to read.
Para 1- normally reliable cognitive tools may cause jurors to commit inferential errors that distort rather than reveal the truth. 
Para 2- inferential errors situations
Para 3- patterns of human decision-making may provide the courts with a guide to evaluating the effect of evidence on the reliability of the jury’s inferential processes in certain situations. 
Para 4- courts know about the issue, role of judge

1 . Which of the following best explains the main idea of the passage?

(A). When making decisions in certain predictable situations, juries may commit inferential errors that obscure rather than reveal the truth. - Correct

2. Of the following hypothetical reforms in trial procedure, which one would the author be most likely to support as the best way to address the problem of jury inferential error? 
(D) specific training for judges in the area of jury instruction- Correct
Nonetheless, most judges now employ only a limited and primitive concept of jury inferential error: limited because it fails to recognize the potential for errors outside certain traditional situations, primitive because it ignores the research and conclusions of psychologists in favor of notions about human cognition held by lawyers.

3. In the second paragraph, the author’s primary purpose is to 
(D) provide examples of situations that may precipitate jury errors- Correct, the author lists three circumstances

4. Which one of the following best describes the author’s attitude toward the majority of judges today? 
(C) critical of their failure to take into account potentially helpful research- Correct
Nonetheless, most judges now employ only a limited and primitive concept of jury inferential error: limited because it fails to recognize the potential for errors outside certain traditional situations, primitive because it ignores the research and conclusions of psychologists in favor of notions about human cognition held by lawyers.

5. Which one of the following statements, if true, would most seriously undermine the author’s suggestion about the use of current psychological research in the courtroom? 
(B) Current models of how humans make decisions apply reliably to individuals but do not hold for decisions made by groups.- Correct, since the jury is a group of people, if option B is true, then author's suggestion will be weakened

6. It can be inferred from the passage that the author would be most likely to agree with which of the following generalizations about lawyers? 
(A) They have a less sophisticated understanding of human cognition than do psychologists.- Correct
primitive because it ignores the research and conclusions of psychologists in favor of notions about human cognition held by lawyers.

7. The author would be most likely to agree with which one of the following generalizations about a jury’s decision making process? 
(E) The manner in which evidence is presented to a jury may influence the jury either to overestimate or to underestimate the value of that evidence.- Correct

Also, a jury may give more probative weight than objective analysis would allow to vivid photographic evidence depicting a shooting victim’s wounds, or may underestimate the weight of defense testimony that is not delivered in a sufficiently forceful or persuasive manner.

Gladiator59 · Answer

4 mins 52 secs and got 2 out of 3. Got the second one wrong but a little bit of pondering reveals why Q2 is A. I will tackle that Q first.

Que6 : “It can be inferred from the passage that the author would be most likely to agree with which of the following generalizations about lawyers?”
 (A) They have a less sophisticated understanding of human cognition than do psychologists.  Correct Ans   Clearly mentioned in the last sentence of the passage "judges are primitive because they give more favour to lawyers understanding of inferential mistakes vs. that of psychologists - THIS IMPLIES PSYCHOLOGISTS HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING" 
(B) They often present complex or voluminous information merely in order to confuse a jury.  TRAP - this cannot be inferred even if this could be employed by the lawyers to try and fool the jury 
(C) They are no better at making logical inferences from the testimony at a trial than are most judges.  Not mentioned 
(D) They have worked to help judges minimize jury inferential error.  Not mentioned 
(E) They are unrealistic about the ability of jurors to ascertain the truth.  Non sensical

Hence Option A is best for Q6.

Q1:  The whole passage is about inferential errors : why and how they are committed and how the judges are not doing enough to resolve the issue.  Hence a clear A.

Q7: Que7. “The author would be most likely to agree with which one of the following generalizations about a jury’s decisionmaking process?” 
(A) The more evidence a jury has, the more likely it is that the jury will reach a reliable verdict.  The opposite is mentioned in the passage, sometimes jury will get confused with more evidence and make wrong inferences 
(B) Juries usually overestimate the value of visual evidence such as photographs.   TRAP option  as this is not true about any photograph - the jury responds massively to graphic photos of wounds etc. 
(C) Jurors have preconceptions about the behavior of defendants that prevent them from making an objective analysis of the evidence in a criminal trial.  Too extreme - if the word "MAY have or can have"were used then this could be a likely correct answer. 
(D) Most of the jurors who make inferential errors during a trial do so because they are unaccustomed to having to make difficult decisions based on inferences.  Not true at all! In fact they have spent entire life making decisions as per passage 
(E) The manner in which evidence is presented to a jury may influence the jury either to overestimate or to underestimate the value of that evidence.  True - as inferential errors result due to this fact itself.

Best,
Gladi

Skywalker18 · Answer

Explaining why B is wrong in Question 7:

The passage states-"Also, a jury may give more probative weight than objective analysis would allow to vivid photographic evidence depicting a shooting victim’s wounds"

7. (B) Juries usually overestimate the value of visual evidence such as photographs.- incorrect, there are two issues with B

i. the passage talks about jury may. So we can't infer that it happens usually
ii. the passage talks about vivid photographic evidence and not just any photographs

Hope this helps!

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Explanation

6. It can be inferred from the passage that the author would be most likely to agree with which of the following generalizations about lawyers?

Difficulty Level:   700

Explanation

Consistent with the overall idea that those involved in the judicial process could benefit from the insights of cognitive psychologists.

(B)  is too extreme; the passage does say that  “complex and voluminous”  evidence is often confusing for juries, but it doesn’t accuse lawyers of attempting to confuse juries.

(C)  Outside the scope—the inferential abilities of judges and lawyers are never compared.

(D)  is also outside the scope. The passage suggests no conscientious pursuit of the truth on the part of lawyers. (Ahem.)

(E)  distorts  Para 1 ; the author says that lawyers call the inferential process  “fact-finding,”  but this is far short of saying that they are unrealistic about the abilities of juries.

Answer: A

Hope it helps

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Official Explanation

4. Which one of the following best describes the author’s attitude toward the majority of judges today?

Difficulty Level:   700

Explanation

Captures both the tone and thrust of  para 4 . Judges have been guilty of having only a  “limited and primitive concept of jury error”  and failing to acknowledge psychologists’ research into the problem.

(A)  has the wrong verb—LSAT authors are rarely if ever going to sound  “apprehensive.”  We can’t recall a single instance.

(B)  distorts the passage; it’s the juries, not the judges, who are making unwarranted conclusions.

(D)  is also a distortion. There’s nothing in  para 4  that actually suggests opposition from judges, nor, as we noted in Q.3(B), is the passage advocating  “significant changes in trial procedure.”

(E)  should scream  “wrong paragraph.”   Para 2  mentions excessively complex evidence, but it doesn’t seem to be the judges’ fault.

Answer: C

Hope it helps

Hoozan · Answer

SajjadAhmad  please help me understand Q.4

The passage says "Nonetheless, most judges now employ only a limited and primitive concept of jury inferential error: limited because it fails to recognize the potential for errors outside certain traditional situations, primitive because it ignores"

Here singular pronoun "it" cannot stand for the plural noun "judges" Thus I assumed "it" refers to the jury

Moreover, I don't understand how the tone of para 4 is "judges have been guilty of..."

I don't think "Nonetheless" is sufficient to give this tone of "guilty"

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Probably your question is incomplete, or maybe complicated enough for me to understand. What do you want in question number 4? any answer option or anything else?

Hoozan · Answer

When we see the last few sentences if para 4 " Judges have been guilty of having only a “limited and primitive concept of jury error” and failing to acknowledge psychologists’ research into the problem."

We see that it was  the jury   who failed to recognize the potential errors  ...and it was  the jury   who ignored the research...

But according to the official answer it was the judges who did so

How is this possible?

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Read the last 8 Lines of the last para In fact, one of a presiding judge’s duties is to minimize jury inferential error through explanation and clarification. Nonetheless, most judges now employ only a limited and primitive concept of jury inferential error: limited because it fails to recognize the potential for errors outside certain traditional situations, primitive because it ignores the research and conclusions of psychologists in favor of notions about human cognition held by lawyers. Now read answer option C Apart from this you can read explanation in link below https://gmatclub.com/forum/faced-with-t ... l#p2385711 Hope it helps

deveshj21 · Answer

SajjadAhmad 
Why option C of question 1 is incorrect?

Ill be glad if you could explain.

bM22 · Answer

Hi  deveshj21 ,

Through out the passage, author discusses the inferential errors and how they are committed. He also mentions how the jury normally rely on cognitive tools, that result in such inferences that cause distortion of truth rather than its revelation. This idea can be inferred from option A. Option C, though correct, it not the main idea, as it is just a subset of the main concern of the passage. Why and how jurors make errors in judgment is the main intent of the passage.

Let me know if this helps.
Thanks.

Sajjad1994 · Answer

(C)  is too specific and focuses on a detail of one particular cause of jury error mentioned in  Paragraph 3.  That is why it is wrong.

akt715 · Answer

primitive because it ignores the research and conclusions of psychologists in favor of notions about human cognition held by lawyers. I did not understand this sentence . Can anyone explain what does it mean???

Sajjad1994 · Answer

The paragraph from which this text belongs:

The fact that juries can commit inferential errors that jeopardize the accuracy of the fact-finding process is not unknown to the courts. In fact, one of a presiding judge’s duties is to minimize jury inferential error through explanation and clarification. Nonetheless, most judges now employ only a limited and primitive concept of jury inferential error: limited because it fails to recognize the potential for errors outside certain traditional situations,  primitive because it ignores the research and conclusions of psychologists in favor of notions about human cognition held by lawyers.

Here primitive mean is prehistoric/basic (employing a jury to avoid inferential error, a jury keeping in mind the only prehistoric inferential errors fails to recognize the potential for errors outside certain traditional situations).

anurag2018 · Answer

Can you please help with Q7? Is C wrong because of use of "usually" than "may"?

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Hi anurag2018

(C)  is tricky, but it’s not a generalization that the author would agree with. Remember, the passage says that preconceptions about defendants with prior convictions influence juries, not that preconceptions about defendants  in general  are problematic.

Mck2023 · Answer

Hi Experts ( GMATNinja   VeritasKarishma  )
Can you please help me with the Question No 1. Its asking about main idea of the passage. And I got stuck between A and E. After some analysis, I decided to go with E. 
What is actually the primary purpose of the author? Just to tell about the inferential errors or to tell about the issues in and ways of mitigating those errors? If second case is true, then correct answer may be option E.
Please clarify. I could not know where I am going wrong. Thank you.

KarishmaB · Answer

Mck2023

I understand your confusion but (A) is correct.

Nowhere does the author mention who should instruct the juries. He only tells us that the judges use a limited and primitive scope. Perhaps the judges could start instructing based on psychologists' conclusions. The point of the passage is not who should instruct but inferential errors juries make.

Ayushi0002 · Answer

Q2 - In this - "By applying the same cognitive tools they have developed and used over a lifetime, jurors engage in the inferential exercise that lawyers call fact-finding.”
Should this not indicate the answer to be E rather than D? 
Not sure, though I was inbetween the two - if someone could clarify why not D - that would be great!!

(D) specific training for judges in the area of jury instruction

(E) restrictions on lawyers’ use of psychological research

Faced with the problems of insufficient evidence, of conflicting evide

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Reading Comprehension (RC) Questions

Faced with the problems of insufficient evidence, of conflicting evide

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards