Q12

[josephine77777]

Can anybody explain why C is wrong?
Great thanks!

[andreperez7]

The question asks why did the author mention "cognitive framework." The answer is in lines 58-59 following it when she says that "an early negative impression that forms a cognitive framework for jurors, who then filter subsequent information through this schema."

In other words, the author is saying this to highlight the risk that bringing up such a negative revelation will put jurors in a negative frame of mind from then on, and if that's early on, then most of what jurors hear about the person they will view in a negative light.

A weaker way to say this, without mentioning the negativity part, is that it will affect their views from there on -- answer A.

Answer C is incorrect, I believe, because it makes an unsupported comparison of the impact this technique will have: Will the positive of doing this always outweigh damaging evidence presented later? We and the author do not know. As she says, this depends on many factors, which she explains, and, if anything, she suggests prevents us and "stealing thunder" proponents from saying that this is always a good tactic. That would seem to me the purpose of lines 46-59, the last fourth of the passage.

[renata.gomez]

can someone validate my reasoning for why D would be wrong?

I'm thinking it's wrong because while it should be earlier in the trial rather than after the jury forms a negative schema, it shouldn't necessarily be "As early as possible" as is stated in the choice?

Thank you!

[Didius Falco]

First, Along the lines of what andreperez7 says above, I think it was helpful for me in review to really unpack (C) and realize that it is totally unsupported, but with tricky and convoluted language that attempts to make you think it could work by tying it into concepts connected to the passage in paragraph 3.

(C) states that "cognitive framework" is intended to convey: damaging info framed positively early (presumably in the process of stealing thunder) will have less impact that negative evidence presented later.

At first glance: you see a reference to stealing thunder, and one to evidence working better early than late, and you think "ok, this is on the right track".

But then you break down the comparison at a deeper level (for me, it was Ohthatpatrick's voice reminding me that unjustified comparisons are a classic RC trick answer choice which prompted this).

The claim really translates to: 'If I steal your thunder early, then that will have more impact on the jury's deliberations than a piece of negative evidence you present later.'

This comparison is not even of a single piece of negative evidence presented early vs late (say, the fact that my client is a problem gambler); but rather a broad comparison of any two pieces of evidence!

It is much to strong to be supported by the passage at all, never mind the specific phrase referenced. How can I say, for example, that revealing that my client is a problem gambler early, before you can force that fact into the open, will have more impact than you revealing on the last day that my client wrote a letter explicitly contemplating the crime to his best friend?!!?

I can't. That sort of comparison is not even what the passage is about. This is a classic unjustified comparison answer----grabbing two entities (damaging evidence revealed early and of the defense's own volition, and damaging evidence revealed late), and attempting to make comparative judgements about them that are never supported by the passage (and definitely not suggested by the referenced phrase).

-----------

In reference to (D) renata.gomez, I am in agreement with you that "as soon as possible" is unjustifiably strong. We only really see reference to revealing information "before that information is revealed or elicited by an opposing lawyer" (3-4). Not necessarily as soon as we can.

One can easily imagine that walking into a trial for a vehicular homicide as the defense attorney, and leading off your open statement with

"My name is Didius Falco, and my client is a problem drinker who likes to drag race when he's drunk."

may not be the most strategic way to preempt the negative reveal of that information.

Hope thats helpful?

[renata.gomez]

Exactly what I was thinking... Thank you!