GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 27 Jun 2019, 01:38

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# In interviews with jurors inquiring how they arrived at

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 25 Nov 2011
Posts: 159
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, General Management
GPA: 3.95
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
In interviews with jurors inquiring how they arrived at  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Feb 2012, 09:48
2
11
00:00

Difficulty:

85% (hard)

Question Stats:

52% (02:23) correct 48% (02:23) wrong based on 676 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

In interviews with jurors inquiring how they arrived at their verdicts, researchers found that 40 percent of the references jurors made were to factors that had not been included in courtroom testimony. To improve the jury system, the researchers suggested that judges give instructions to the jury at the beginning of a trial rather than at the end. They argued that this would permit jurors to concentrate on the most relevant evidence rather than filling in gaps with their own assumptions, which have little to do with the legality of a case.

The answer to which of the following questions is LEAST directly relevant to evaluating the researchers’ suggestion above?

A. Is it possible for a judge to instruct a jury at the end of a trial in such a way that jurors will disregard any irrelevant factors they had been using to weigh the evidence?

B. Will a jury that hears a judge’s instructions at the beginning of a trial be able to weigh the evidence accordingly once that evidence has actually been presented?

C. Will having judges give instructions at the beginning of a trial rather than at the end significantly alter the customary procedures employed by the judicial system?

D. Were the methods and or interview processes used by the researchers biased in any way?

E. If jurors hear the judge’s instructions at the beginning of a trial, what percentage of the factors that influence their decisions will be matters that were not presented in the evidence?

_________________
-------------------------
-Aravind Chembeti
Retired Moderator
Status: Flying over the cloud!
Joined: 17 Aug 2011
Posts: 540
Location: Viet Nam
GMAT Date: 06-06-2014
GPA: 3.07
Re: In interviews with jurors inquiring how they  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Feb 2012, 01:43
Take 2.13'' to reach the answer C. My explanation is below:

Chembeti wrote:
In interviews with jurors inquiring how they arrived at their verdicts, researchers found that 40 percent of the references jurors made were to factors that had not been included in courtroom testimony. To improve the jury system, the researchers suggested that judges give instructions to the jury at the beginning of a trial rather than at the end. They argued that this would permit jurors to concentrate on the most relevant evidence rather than filling in gaps with their own assumptions, which have little to do with the legality of a case.

The answer to which of the following questions is LEAST directly relevant to evaluating the researchers’ suggestion above?

A. Is it possible for a judge to instruct a jury at the end of a trial in such a way that jurors will disregard any irrelevant factors they had been using to weigh the evidence? => YES/NO will help evaluating the suggestion of researcher

B. Will a jury that hears a judge’s instructions at the beginning of a trial be able to weigh the evidence accordingly once that evidence has actually been presented? => Unable/Able => evaluating the ability to give statement of the case

C. Will having judges give instructions at the beginning of a trial rather than at the end significantly alter the customary procedures employed by the judicial system? => the customary procedures does not affect anything on the inquiry of jurors

D. Were the methods and or interview processes used by the researchers biased in any way? => Bias/NOT bias => make consideration of the case

E. If jurors hear the judge’s instructions at the beginning of a trial, what percentage of the factors that influence their decisions will be matters that were not presented in the evidence? => too clearly, so I do not have to say :D

_________________
Manager
Status: May The Force Be With Me (D-DAY 15 May 2012)
Joined: 06 Jan 2012
Posts: 198
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Entrepreneurship
Re: In interviews with jurors inquiring how they  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 27 Feb 2012, 03:10
+1 C

C. Will having judges give instructions at the beginning of a trial rather than at the end significantly alter the customary procedures employed by the judicial system?

Why the judicial system change? We are only concerned with the outcome when the judge gives the jury some instructions
_________________
Giving +1 kudos is a better way of saying 'Thank You'.

Originally posted by boomtangboy on 27 Feb 2012, 01:56.
Last edited by boomtangboy on 27 Feb 2012, 03:10, edited 1 time in total.
Manager
Joined: 25 Nov 2011
Posts: 159
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, General Management
GPA: 3.95
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: In interviews with jurors inquiring how they  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Feb 2012, 02:08
boomtangboy wrote:
+1 C

C. Will having judges give instructions at the beginning of a trial rather than at the end significantly alter the customary procedures employed by the judicial system?

Why the judicial system change? We are only concerned with the outcome when the judge gives the jury some instructions

@boomtangboy

You are correct; we are concerned with the outcome. But still, the proposed change/suggestion might affect judicial system because any "process" change most certainly affect existing system. For e.g, in this case, probably, trial might get delayed because jury is waiting for judge's instructions (this is a very high level view of the jury system; I might be wrong though )

(In case you have any doubts on this explanation, refer to the question again: it includes a word "LEAST" in capital form. That should give you a hint that EVERY option is affected)

Now, our problem is to identify which one is of least problamatic. Obviously C is the answer.

_________________
-------------------------
-Aravind Chembeti
Intern
Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Posts: 36
Re: In interviews with jurors inquiring how they  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Feb 2012, 22:12
1
Chembeti wrote:
In interviews with jurors inquiring how they arrived at their verdicts, researchers found that 40 percent of the references jurors made were to factors that had not been included in courtroom testimony. To improve the jury system, the researchers suggested that judges give instructions to the jury at the beginning of a trial rather than at the end. They argued that this would permit jurors to concentrate on the most relevant evidence rather than filling in gaps with their own assumptions, which have little to do with the legality of a case.

The answer to which of the following questions is LEAST directly relevant to evaluating the researchers’ suggestion above?

conclusion : judges give instructions to jury at beginning of a trail rather than at end
premise 1: researchers conducted interviews with jurors on how they arrive at verdicts.
premise 2: researchers found 40% of ref made by jurors are not included in courtroom testimony
premise 3: instructions at the beginning would help jurors to concentrate on most relevant facts

A. Is it possible for a judge to instruct a jury at the end of a trial in such a way that jurors will disregard any irrelevant factors they had been using to weigh the evidence? if this is ture then there is no need to instruct at beginning of trail. hence this statement impacts researcher Conclusion

B. Will a jury that hears a judge’s instructions at the beginning of a trial be able to weigh the evidence accordingly once that evidence has actually been presented? impacts premise 3

C. Will having judges give instructions at the beginning of a trial rather than at the end significantly alter the customary procedures employed by the judicial system? no impacts on any of the premise or conclusion. hence the correct answer

D. Were the methods and or interview processes used by the researchers biased in any way? impacts overall process and conclusion. if process was baised then conclusion made in the statement will surely be in doubt

E. If jurors hear the judge’s instructions at the beginning of a trial, what percentage of the factors that influence their decisions will be matters that were not presented in the evidence? impacts premise 2. If this percent is lower than percent given in premise 2, then conclusion will be impacted
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 55804
Re: In interviews with jurors inquiring how they arrived at  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Jan 2019, 04:18
Chembeti wrote:
In interviews with jurors inquiring how they arrived at their verdicts, researchers found that 40 percent of the references jurors made were to factors that had not been included in courtroom testimony. To improve the jury system, the researchers suggested that judges give instructions to the jury at the beginning of a trial rather than at the end. They argued that this would permit jurors to concentrate on the most relevant evidence rather than filling in gaps with their own assumptions, which have little to do with the legality of a case.

The answer to which of the following questions is LEAST directly relevant to evaluating the researchers’ suggestion above?

A. Is it possible for a judge to instruct a jury at the end of a trial in such a way that jurors will disregard any irrelevant factors they had been using to weigh the evidence?

B. Will a jury that hears a judge’s instructions at the beginning of a trial be able to weigh the evidence accordingly once that evidence has actually been presented?

C. Will having judges give instructions at the beginning of a trial rather than at the end significantly alter the customary procedures employed by the judicial system?

D. Were the methods and or interview processes used by the researchers biased in any way?

E. If jurors hear the judge’s instructions at the beginning of a trial, what percentage of the factors that influence their decisions will be matters that were not presented in the evidence?

KAPLAN OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:

C

In order to evaluate the suggestion here, we must identify the problem that the plan is intended to solve, and how it will do so. That's the standard approach to Critical Reasoning arguments that put forth plans and proposals.

After conducting interviews, researchers are alarmed at the extent to which jurors appear to base verdicts on factors outside testimony. Researchers suggest that juries should get instructions at the beginning of a trial rather than at its end, so they can concentrate on relevant evidence. We want the question that is least helpful in evaluating this plan. Questions that are helpful in evaluating the plan will probably test the researchers' understanding of the problem, or test the efficacy of their proposed solution. A good way to test the choices is to check whether "yes" and "no" answers to the question affect the plan's chances of success differently (where, of course, the question allows a "yes" or "no" answer). (C) fails the test. We're interested in whether the plan will be effective, or whether it's necessary, or whether there's a better approach. (C) asks only if implementing the suggestion will alter customary procedures. No matter what the answer to that question is, the researchers' suggestion is unaffected.

If the answer to (A) is yes, then the researchers' plan isn't even necessary-the present system will work if given a little refining. If the answer to (B) is "yes," then the researchers' suggestion is strengthened. If the answer is "no," then the suggestion is worthless. (D) strikes at the reason for developing the plan. If the answer is "yes," that jurors do report factors that weren't really influential to their decision making, then the plan may not be necessary. (E) asks if the plan will work; if jurors still consider many factors that have nothing to do with the evidence even when judges give their instructions ahead of time, then the plan will fail. If, on the other hand, jurors consider far fewer irrelevant factors, then the plan looks good.
_________________
Re: In interviews with jurors inquiring how they arrived at   [#permalink] 10 Jan 2019, 04:18
Display posts from previous: Sort by