Reading Comprehension

PT104 · S3 · P1 · Q2 Jury Impartiality

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension question.

Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one
Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step
81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

The expansion of mass media has led to an explosion in news coverage of criminal activities to the point where it has become virtually impossible to find citizens who are unaware of the details of crimes committed in their communities.

Topic

The challenges of ensuring impartial juries in the age of mass media coverage of crime.

Framework

Problem / Solution

Main Point

Because mass media makes it nearly impossible for jurors to be totally ignorant of criminal cases, traditional methods for ensuring impartiality—like voir dire, change of venue, and judge’s instructions—are often ineffective; true impartiality comes from the collective deliberation of a diverse and informed jury, not from isolating each individual juror from information and opinion. The Most Valuable Sentence appears in the last paragraph:

P1: The Complication of Empaneling Impartial Juries in the Media Age

The huge increase in crime coverage by mass media means everyone knows details about criminal cases, making it really hard to find jurors who can be unbiased or truly impartial, especially in high-profile cases.

P2: Traditional Judicial Remedies and Their Critics

Judges use strategies like moving trials or giving strict instructions to the jury to reduce bias, but critics say these don’t actually work—people can’t really ignore what they already know, especially for well-publicized cases.

P3: Problems with Voir Dire (Jury Questioning)

The main method judges rely on is questioning jurors during jury selection to weed out bias, but critics point out a lot of flaws: some people hide their true feelings, some lie to avoid serving, some aren’t honest about what they know, and sometimes judges unintentionally lead people to a desired answer.

One critic characterizes judges' instructions as requiring "mental contortions" (end of the second paragraph) most likely because of a belief that jurors cannot be expected to

Correct
deliberate only on what they
Why this is right
This seems like the best available match for what we're looking for: ignore information learned outside the courtroom when thinking/deliberating about a case. "Outside the courtroom" is the same here as "what they knew beforehand". They should ignore stuff they've learned outside the courtroom and deliberate only on what they learn in a trial.
Skill tested: Meaning in Context · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.
69% picked this
distinguish between pretrial speculation and
Distinguish vs. Ignore
This might be temptingly similar to what we're looking for: ignore information learned outside the courtroom when thinking/deliberating about a case. We might think of "outside the courtroom" as being a decent match for "pretrial speculation". We might think of "inside the courtroom" being the actual facts of a case. In that case, "mental contortions" refers to the critics' belief that jurors cannot be expected to ignore pretrial speculation and attend only to the actual facts of the case. There are two issues there 1. "Being able to distinguish between stuff we learned from X and stuff we learned from Y" is not the same thing as "ignoring stuff we learned from X and thinking only about what we learned from Y". In order to ignore X, you'd have to distinguish X from Y, but critics aren't skeptical that we can distinguish the two. They're skeptical that we can ignore X. 2. this answer is referring to the "outside courtroom" stuff as "pretrial speculation", whereas the passage was talking about "learning information" outside the courtroom. It wasn't saying that what jurors were getting out of the courtroom was rumor or innuendo or speculation. They were just saying it was inadmissible to the trial, if it wasn't actually presented during the trial.
3% picked this
hear about a case before
Bad Match: no opinion
This does not match what we're looking for: when thinking / deliberating about a case, ignore information learned outside the courtroom "ignoring information" is not the same thing as "not-forming an opinion". This answer also refers to the pre-trial phase, whereas the mental contortions referred to the actual trial phase.
14% picked this
identify accurately the degree of
Bad Match: identify degree
This does not match what we're looking for: when thinking / deliberating about a case, ignore information learned outside the courtroom "accurately self-assessing your prior knowledge" is not the same thing as "ignore / suppress information learned outside the courtroom".
3% picked this
protect themselves from widely disseminated
Bad Match: avoid widespread publicity
This does not match what we're looking for: when thinking / deliberating about a case, ignore information learned outside the courtroom "avoiding widespread pretrial publicity" does not mean the same thing as same thing as "ignore / suppress information learned outside the courtroom". If some one avoids widespread publicity, they'll remove one source of information they could learn outside the courtroom. But they could still learn about the case from speaking to people familiar with it or by exposing themselves to moderately disseminated pretrial publicity. The critics are saying that people will have a hard time ignoring the totality of stuff they've learned outside the courtroom (potentially from a myriad of sources).
11% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill

LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free