In interviews with jurors inquiring how they arrived at their verdicts

Question

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?

This is a  CR Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects: 
 
   Data Sufficiency Butler 
   Problem Solving Butler  
   Sentence Correction Butler  
   Reading Comprehension Butler  
   Integrated Reasoning Butler

Jsgambach · Answer

IMO ANS C (not sure though)

A, B, D and E would help evaluating the argument, as they are strictly dealing with the researcher's view, they will be helpful in evaluating.

Only C is "irrelevant", not completely irrelevant, but it is the least helpful, so I go with C here, as it does not DIRECTLY deals with the topic. Its not completely out of the box though, but it is the least helpful of the 5.

Abhishek_007 · Answer

Proposed Solution :  Judges should give instructions to the jury at the beginning of the trial rather than at the end.
 (D) Were the methods and or interview processes used by the researchers biased in any way? 
This question is least directly relevant, because it questions the validity of the researchers' data collection, rather than directly evaluating the proposed solution itself.

Bunuel · Answer

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.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

In interviews with jurors inquiring how they arrived at their verdicts

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

In interviews with jurors inquiring how they arrived at their verdicts

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