I hate that I got such an early question wrong...
I was down to (D) and (E) and ended up picking (E).
Does (E) support the lawyer's argument because it supports "it is more important... to have basic but adequate understanding of their role THAN it is for the details of that role to be precisely specified?"
LSAT Forum
2 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- hyewonkim89
-
Thanks Received: 5
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 122
- Joined: December 17th, 2012
- Most Thankful
- First Responder
-
- christine.defenbaugh
-
Thanks Received: 585
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 536
- Joined: May 17th, 2013
- This post thanked 1 time.
Re: Q3 - Lawyer: Juries are traditionally
Don't beat yourself up over it, hyewonkim89! Sometimes early questions are harder than we might expect. Often, though, missing an objectively easier question can be a blessing! It may reveal some clear gap in our own thinking that might have been much more obscured in a thornier question.
Let's break this down from the top. The core can be thought of as:
More imp = basic/adequate understanding =======> jury instructions should
Less imp = precise details ===================> be simple language
What's the gap? This assumes that simple language must be better for that basic/adequate understanding than the traditional convoluted language is. And since the question is a strengthen/except question, we know we need four different strengtheners that bolster this central assumption.
(D) is our odd man out. We don't actually care about how precise that simple language is. We need it to be better for a basic but adequate understanding, and this answer doesn't say a thing about that. This answer neither strengthens nor weakens.
The Strengtheners
(A) This states our general assumption nearly perfectly: simple language is better at giving jurors a basic understanding of their role than convoluted language is!
(B) If the convoluted language is usually bad at giving jurors a basic understanding of their role, that makes it more likely the simple language will be better at it in comparison.
(C) The simple language needs to at least be capable of giving jurors an adequate understanding of their role.
(E) If we needed precision in order to achieve an adequate understanding, then ditching precision (by using simple language) would mean losing that adequate understanding. That would mean simple language would not be better for basic understanding! This strengthener eliminates that concern.
Please let me know if that completely answers your question!
Let's break this down from the top. The core can be thought of as:
More imp = basic/adequate understanding =======> jury instructions should
Less imp = precise details ===================> be simple language
What's the gap? This assumes that simple language must be better for that basic/adequate understanding than the traditional convoluted language is. And since the question is a strengthen/except question, we know we need four different strengtheners that bolster this central assumption.
(D) is our odd man out. We don't actually care about how precise that simple language is. We need it to be better for a basic but adequate understanding, and this answer doesn't say a thing about that. This answer neither strengthens nor weakens.
The Strengtheners
(A) This states our general assumption nearly perfectly: simple language is better at giving jurors a basic understanding of their role than convoluted language is!
(B) If the convoluted language is usually bad at giving jurors a basic understanding of their role, that makes it more likely the simple language will be better at it in comparison.
(C) The simple language needs to at least be capable of giving jurors an adequate understanding of their role.
(E) If we needed precision in order to achieve an adequate understanding, then ditching precision (by using simple language) would mean losing that adequate understanding. That would mean simple language would not be better for basic understanding! This strengthener eliminates that concern.
Please let me know if that completely answers your question!
2 posts Page 1 of 1