Reading Comprehension

PT104 · S3 · P1 · Q4 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.

With which one of the following statements would the author be most likely to agree?

Flaws in voir dire procedures
Contradicted
The author's last few sentences are saying that you can have an impartial jury that is composed of people who have had prior exposure to the subject matter in a trial via mass media exposure. Impartiality ≠ a juror who is oblivious to the case Impartiality = a process of deliberation among the members of the jury (even if they already have an opinion on the case when they show up) So since the author thinks impartiality is very achievable, as long as we redefine it, she wouldn't say "it's unlikely that juries capable of impartiality can be selected".
13% picked this
Knowledge of a case before
Too Strong: the best
The author is saying that we can be tolerant of jury members' having prior exposure to some of a case's details, via mass media exposure. If that exposure is representative of the community's collective experience, then we're good. But the author isn't saying that prior knowledge is a necessary ingredient to achieving the best kind of impartial decisions. If there were a case that didn't have any mass media exposure, then it would be more representative of the community's collective experience to not have any prior knowledge. The author isn't suggesting that in such circumstances, the best jury members would be the weirdos who for some reason had prior knowledge of the case.
4% picked this
Correct
Jurors who bring prior opinions
Why this is right
This has the very weak language we're attracted to: People who are X need not do Y just means that "in at least one case, someone could be X but not Y". Does this author think that it's possible sometimes for jurors to bring prior opinions about a case, but it doesn't decrease the chance of an impartial decision? Certainly! Her idea at the end is that impartiality isn't dependent on whether the minds of individual jurors have prior opinions. It's dependent on a process of deliberation among the many members of the panel. So the jury can still render an impartial decision even if the people empaneled are opinionated when it comes to this case.
Skill tested: Author Opinion · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.
70% picked this
Only juries consisting of people
Too Strong: only Opposite
The author's main point is basically the opposite of this. This represents the old conception of impartiality (individual jurors have no prior knowledge). The author is re-defining impartiality as something that results from the process of deliberation among jury members, some/all of whom may have prior opinions.
2% picked this
People who know the facts
Unknown Comparison Relative vs. Absolute
This answer is frustratingly appealing, on a common sense level. How could someone who doesn't know the facts of a case be more opinionated than someone who does? Well, just think back to all the covid masking/vaccine debates. The people who knew the (still-emerging, nebulous) facts the best were the epidemiologist, virologists, and doctors. The people with the strongest opinions were the TV pundits and culture-war-stoking social media trolls. Beyond the fact that even in the real world this answer is not necessarily true, we have no support sentence to match this up with. The author's voice appears in the final few sentences of the passage, and nowhere there does she compare how opinionated different groups are. "Opinionated" is only used in an absolute, yes/no sense. It's never used in a comparative sense.
10% 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