1. In this passage, the author’s main purpose is to:
A - The author is introduces the idea and premise of a fair trial in the first paragraph, then proceeds to point out the various ways "fairness" may be violated which include factors affecting the perception of witnesses (1st paragraph), jurors (2nd paragraph), and liars (third paragraph). E may be a little tempting, but "unavoidable abuses" is wrong. No one is abusing the system.
2. The author considers all of the following obstacles to a fair trial EXCEPT:
E - The author considers too MANY abstractions to be obstacles hence why most of the passage is dedicated to explaining what these abstractions are. A,B,C, and D are all found in the passage.
3. The author would most likely agree that the abstraction process occurs in the judicial process primarily because:
C - Abstractions occur in the judicial process because jurors are using already abstracted testimonies from the witnesses. This causes more and more layers of partial and biased information to be laid on. To summarize this is simply stating human beings are the sources (witnesses) and users (jurors) of data presented in trials. Choice A has a little merit, but the question is asking for MOST LIKELY AGREE and having some jurors who base their testimonies on fact simply isn't compelling enough. Choice B may seem right but nowhere in the passage does it state emotions; it may seem like emotions, but bias and emotions are not the same. Choice E is wrong because although some testimonies may not align, nowhere does it say anyone is purposely trying to dispute another witness' testimony.
4. It can be inferred that the author believes the ability of juries to resolve factual issues is:
E - Jurors suffer from many of the same limitations that affect witnesses. Their abilities to recall pieces of testimony and presented evidence mixed with their own inferences (which are heavily dependent on existing biases) are what resolving factual issues is subject to. Choice A may seem right, but is too limited in scope. "Others are found inferentially". This means some people don't use inference as a way to derive their thought processes. Choice D also may sway one, but the jury has no idea what the abstraction process is, in fact if they knew it too well and have ways to counter it then this wouldn't be a problem after all!
5. With which one of the following statements would the author most likely agree?
A - This one is tough. Choice A is correct, but not too compelling. The author clearly downplays the severity of deliberate untruthfulness in the last paragraph (hence why Choice B is wrong). But deliberate untruthfulness after all, is a factor that influence the fairness of a trial. So yes, if we can eliminate it, then the world will be a better place. Choice C may seem alluring but the killer here is "rarely have serious consequences". If only this were true then the world would've been a better place. Sadly it is simply not. When people deliberately lie in court, it may lead to horrible horrible consequences (I've watched a lot of those falsely accused convicts Youtube videos, very sad). So for the second part of the sentence, this option is out. Choice E is also wrong because eliminating intentional falsification still leaves the other effects of abstraction on the table.
6. The author’s attitude toward the abstraction process that occurs when witnesses testify in a trial can best be described as:
B - The whole passage is dedicated to explaining the various ways witnesses ability to accurately describe the original event in dispute may be undermined. The author is concerned these factors violate the fair process. The only other decent option here is Choice E, but the author's tone is a little different from suspicious. Even more, when one has problems describing remembered events truthfully, this is giving me the sense that person is lying and that is not what the author's attitude is towards testimonies.
7. Given the information in the passage, the actual event that is disputed in a jury trial is most like:
B - The subject is the case at hand. The varied vantage points of photography are the witnesses (this can be almost literal). The increasingly distant vantage points are both the witnesses and jurors (they are getting farther and farther away from the truth through abstraction). Choice C gives me the feeling that unique interpretations come together to create one final intricate product - if this were true then there wouldn't be a point to write a passage about abstraction. Choice E is wrong as no one is here trying to maintain anything and not that many people are deliberately lying.