The insanity defense in legal proceedings follows from the assumption

Para 1 Summary – Author introduces the nsanty deense aspect o legal proceedings and the assumption it is based upon. Then raises a question for cases where assumption fails to hold and how jurisdictions decide.

Para 2 Summary – Author then notes about the history of insanity aspect using an example of a case where the lawyers claimed that a rational is required for the crime to be committed by a person, which set off the discussion in merits of insanity plea. M’Naghten test came into existence in which judges were required to assess the insanity based on two questions and further details are provided.

Para 3 Summary – In the final para author notes some revisions based on mental irresistible impulse.

The passage is primarily concerned with evaluating

A. the accuracy of the jury’s verdict in the M’Naghten trial – WRONG. No the author is not concerned with the accuracy of jury’s verdict.
B. the criteria used to determine whether a defendant is insane – CORRECT. In all three paragraphs author mentioned something about the criteria viz. raising a question in first, providing details of criteria in second and some revisions about it in last.
C. the relation between mental illness and crime – WRONG. Only second paragraph concerns this, thus limited scope.
D. the legal theories and assumptions behind the presumption of sanity in a defendant – WRONG. Similar to option C this has a limited scope(only para 1).
E. whether it is just to imprison the legally insane who commit crimes – WRONG. Same as option D.

According to the original version of the M’Naghten test, a jury

Marked A. Though it is wrong, it looks good when paragraph 2 is not understood proper. Line 3 “Prosecutors argued …. state of mind” on the other side suggests that a jury does judge “the ability of M’Naghten to plan and execute the assassination as that he must have been in a rational state of mind”.

A. should not construe the defendant’s ability to follow a rational plan as evidence of sanity – WRONG. Introducing ‘not’ in the option makes it wrong.
B. should not consider mitigating factors when sentencing the defendant – WRONG. Irrelevant since degree of sentence in not covered in the passage.
C. should evaluate how rational the defendant’s planning of the crime appeared – WRONG. Details of defendant’s planning is not covered under the test.
D. should acquit a defendant who satisfies one, but not necessarily both, of the criteria for legal insanity – CORRECT. Before actual Test came into existence i.e. before the ruling in M’Naghten case jury used to approach the way only after which two questions were introduced based on which judge ordered ruling.
E. should only acquit a defendant who is both unaware of his actions and does not understand they are wrong – WRONG. Exactly opposite to what is asked. This is true after addendums.

The author of the passage would most likely agree that

Again an inference question and only a better understanding of passage helps to answer. Marked correct answer using POE though.

A. It is difficult to reconcile traditional notions of justice with certain conceptions of mental illness. – CORRECT. Prior to 1843 nothing is known as per passage.
B. Jurors should always presume a defendant is sane unless otherwise directed by the judge – WRONG. Usage of ‘should’ makes the option wrong.
C. There are no mental illnesses that cause people to act in ways that they know are wrong and yet are powerless to resist. – WRONG. Irrelevant since whole passage is about mental role defendant and proceedings.
D. The M’Naghten test will continue to evolve as more research is done on the nature of mental illnesses. – WRONG. Not supported by passage. Irrelevant.
E. A person who is acquitted of a crime by reason of insanity is still responsible for his actions. – WRONG. No such opinion given by author nor even a hint.

In the last paragraph, the author is primarily concerned with

A. summarizing the previous arguments about the M’Naghten test – WRONG. Nothing related to previous arguments is discussed in last para.
B. presenting an evaluation of the usefulness of the M’Naghten test – WRONG. Usefulness of test is not mentioned ever in passage.
C. detailing a more recent revision to the M’Naghten test – CORRECT. Addendum ≃ revision ≃ amendment. Thus correct.
D. exposing the absurdity of using the M’Naghten test – WRONG. Not such sort of discussed.
E. suggesting a paradox inherent in the M’Naghten test – WRONG. Not such sort of discussed.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.