Journalist: When judges do not maintain strict control over their

Question

Journalist: When judges do not maintain strict control over their courtrooms, lawyers often try to influence jury verdicts by using inflammatory language and by badgering witnesses. These obstructive behaviors hinder the jury's effort to reach a correct verdict. Whenever lawyers engage in such behavior, therefore, it is reasonable to doubt whether the verdict is correct.

Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the journalist's argument?

(A) Court proceedings overseen by judges who are very strict in controlling lawyers' behavior are known to result sometimes in incorrect verdicts.

(B) Lawyers tend to be less concerned than are judges about whether the outcomes of jury trials are just or not.

(C) People who are influenced by inflammatory language are very unlikely to admit at some later time that they were influenced by such language.

(D) Obstructive courtroom behavior by a lawyer is seldom effective in cases where jurors are also presented with legitimate evidence.

(E) The selection of jurors is based in part on an assessment of the likelihood that they are free of bias.

guddo · Answer

Journalist: When judges do not maintain strict control over their courtrooms, lawyers often try to influence jury verdicts by using inflammatory language and by badgering witnesses. These obstructive behaviors hinder the jury's effort to reach a correct verdict. Whenever lawyers engage in such behavior, therefore, it is reasonable to doubt whether the verdict is correct. 
 
Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the journalist's argument?

The journalist argues that whenever lawyers use obstructive behavior, the verdict becomes doubtful because such behavior interferes with the jury’s ability to decide correctly.  To weaken this , we need to show that such behavior usually does  not  actually affect the verdict when the jury has proper evidence.

(A) Court proceedings overseen by judges who are very strict in controlling lawyers' behavior are known to result sometimes in incorrect verdicts.

This does not weaken the argument. The argument is about cases with obstructive lawyer behavior, not about whether strict courtrooms can also produce wrong verdicts.

(B) Lawyers tend to be less concerned than are judges about whether the outcomes of jury trials are just or not.

This does not weaken the argument. It may even fit the journalist’s concern, but it does not show that obstructive behavior fails to affect verdicts.

(C) People who are influenced by inflammatory language are very unlikely to admit at some later time that they were influenced by such language.

This does not weaken the argument. It only says the influence may be hard to detect later.

(D) Obstructive courtroom behavior by a lawyer is seldom effective in cases where jurors are also presented with legitimate evidence.

This is correct. If obstructive behavior is usually ineffective when jurors have legitimate evidence, then such behavior does not automatically give us strong reason to doubt the correctness of the verdict.

(E) The selection of jurors is based in part on an assessment of the likelihood that they are free of bias.

This weakens only slightly, if at all. Being selected as relatively unbiased does not show that jurors will not be affected by inflammatory language or witness badgering.

Answer: (D)

sidvinod69 · Answer

It's a clear fight between D and E

So, if free of Bias is regarded irrelevant against the fact jurors are not affected by inflammatory language
How are we considering that cases where legitimate evidences are present do actually happen. i.e what if there were no cases where legitimate evidence was present?

D option in my mind feels like:  IF  there is legitimate evidence -> Jurors are MOSTLY unaffected

guddo  Any thoughts on this?

guddo · Answer

(D) is stronger because it directly attacks the journalist’s claim that obstructive behavior makes the verdict doubtful.

Your “if” reading is right, but that is enough: in normal jury trials, jurors are presented with evidence. So if obstruction is  seldom effective  when legitimate evidence is present, then we have less reason to doubt the verdict.

(E) only says jurors are screened for bias. Being unbiased does not mean they cannot be influenced by  inflammatory language .

egmat · Answer

Hi sidvinod69,

Nice job narrowing it to D vs. E, and you're right to poke at D's conditional wording. The fix is to see  when that condition actually holds .

You read D as: "IF there is legitimate evidence → jurors are mostly unaffected," and then worried,  what if such cases don't happen?  Here's the thing -  "jurors are also presented with legitimate evidence" describes a normal jury trial.  Presenting evidence to a jury is what a trial  is . So this condition isn't a rare edge case the argument might dodge; it's the default setting for essentially every case the journalist is talking about.

Once you see that, D's punch lands. The journalist makes a blanket leap:  whenever  lawyers use these tactics → doubt the verdict. D says that in the ordinary trial (evidence on the table), those tactics are  seldom effective  - they usually don't actually change the outcome. If the behavior rarely works, then its mere presence is  not  a good reason to doubt the verdict. That breaks the exact link the argument depends on.

Why E loses:  E says jurors are screened for bias  at selection . But being free of prior bias going in doesn't mean a juror won't be swayed by inflammatory language or witness-badgering  during  the trial. Those are two different things, so E never touches whether the tactics distort the verdict.

Quick way to feel your own worry: imagine D instead said  "seldom effective in cases where the moon is full."  Now your objection would be dead-on - that condition rarely holds, so the weakening is shaky. But swap it back to  "legitimate evidence,"  and the condition is met in nearly every trial.  The scope of D's condition is the whole point  - it's broad, not narrow.

So D weakens directly; E doesn't.

Answer: D

avoluptatum · Answer

To weaken the journlist's argument, we are looking for an answer choice that refutes the idea that lawyers using obstructive behaviors -> incorrect verdict. 
 
 C: Incorrect as it focuses on the aftermath of incorrect verdict, less so on the correctness of the verdict.  
 D: Best answer, as it states that lawyers using obstructive behaviors ->  not always  incorrect verdict

Journalist: When judges do not maintain strict control over their

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 Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Journalist: When judges do not maintain strict control over their

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