Reading Comprehension

PT104 · S3 · P1 · Q5 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.

The passage suggests that a potential benefit of mass-media coverage on court cases is that it will

determine which facts are appropriate
Out of Scope: appropriate facts
Nothing in our available sentences is talking about which facts are appropriate for juries to hear. And how on Earth would mass media exposure determine which facts are appropriate? Does that mean that the lawyers would think, "It's inappropriate to repeat any facts during this trial that juries would have already heard about through mass media exposure"? That doesn't sound like anything we read.
1% picked this
improve the ability of jurors
Opposite, if anything
This is somewhat tempting, because the passage is saying that mass media exposure could improve the ability of juries to achieve impartiality (as the author is redefining it). But the author is never saying that an individual juror, by being exposed to mass media, is better able to be unbiased (impartial) on a personal level. She thinks that these exposed jurors will be opinionated people, which doesn't quite mean biased in the harshest sense of the word, but it does mean they are not blank slates.
8% picked this
Correct
strengthen the process by which
Why this is right
We were looking for something like, "the benefit of exposure is that it helps a jury with its goal of impartiality". Impartiality (as the author defines it) = composed of citizens representative of the community's collective experience, which includes exposure to mass media. This answer choice is taking our prediction, "Helps a jury with its goal of impartiality" and swapping out "its goal of impartiality" with the way that goal is described in the final sentence of the passage: impartiality results from a process of deliberation among members of a panel of informed, curious, and even opinionated people. If mass exposure leads to people being more informed and opinionated, and the process of deliberation (how juries come to decisions) is meant to include a panel of informed/opinionated people, then we can say that mass exposure helps with the process by which juries deliberate a case. Tough answer, though. Definitely a "best available" last resort.
Skill tested: Inference · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.
70% picked this
change the methods judges use
Out of Scope: methods of questioning
Nothing in these final sentences is saying that one benefit of mass exposure is that it's changing the methods that judges use when questioning potential jurors.
10% picked this
increase potential jurors’ awareness of
Out of Scope: awareness of bias
Nothing in those last few sentences matches up with awareness of personal bias. We know that the author thinks that mass exposure is helping a jury to be "truly impartial", but the author is redefining what she means by impartial. She isn't using the classical definition of "having no opinion, unbiased, blank slate". She's saying impartial just means "a group of average folk". She thinks that we can trust impartiality will result from the process of a panel of informed / curious / even biased people deliberating a case together. She isn't saying that by being exposed to mass media, individual jurors self-reflect and better see their own degree of bias.
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