Q21

[andrewgong01]

The What principle underlies the argument question in dual passage always seems to come up but one that I tend to struggle with in terms of answering it. I find them a lot harder than the standard What's the Main Point question in single passage.

For this one I am not sure how to find support for "C". I was able to correctly get "C" by process of elimination and general "feel"

My Reasoning

A) Out of scope since A never talks about appellate judges

B) Seems extreme because Passage B says that appellate judges should NOT conduct research and Choice B does not make the distinction between appellate and trial judges.

E) Out of scope because A never talks about appellate judges.

For "C" I do see support in Passage A but i did not see that as the principle that underlies A as it is overly focused on the last paragraph of A. For Passage B I don't really see support but I just don't think Passage B would argue against C and call for evidence to be superseded by the judge since Passage B talks about 'bad' research and the need to subject truth to the "crucible" of the trial court system

For "D" , it seems like Passage A may agree with it but again like "C" this seems a bit narrow as a principle that underlies the argument. Passage B doesn't really have a stance on if Judge should question witnesses through independent research for trial courts. But for appellate courts, this is a NO but at the same time in appellate courts the passage makes clear there are no live testimonies anyways so this answer choice would only apply to trial courts since by definition (Line 33) the very nature of the appellate court does not include live eye witness questioning

[ohthatpatrick]

I think one of the reasons it will feel harder is because it's not specifically asking us for the MAIN or PRIMARY principle.

So our correct answer may seem to underlie only part of one passage's argument (not its main argument).

A similar question stem is
"both authors are concerned with ____"
vs.
"both authors are PRIMARILY concerned with _____ "


For (D), neither author is actively arguing that judges should always do research. Psg B is specifically arguing that appellate judges should NOT do research. Psg A is arguing that "the concerns with judicial research do not justify an absolute prohibition of the practice".

In other words, we should consider letting judges, at least sometimes, do research.

Do (D) doesn't match B at all and is way too extreme for A.

To support (C), we just need references from both passages indicating that evidence presented by opposing parties in a trial is the most important form of evidence.

In psg B, lines 37-46 put a big premium on how adverse parties lend themselves to "the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth - cross examination".

In psg A, lines 27-29 emphasize that judges' independent research would SUPPLEMENT, not replace. The ADVERSE PARTIES always frame the debate.