Jury Impartiality

Answer choices

1. A

   Unrelated to Goal4% picked this

   search for compromise between proponents and critics of

   Voir dire was just one of several potential solutions that the author presents but then undermines. The author's main agenda in writing this passage was to make the proposed solution she offers in the final two sentences of the passage, not to find a compromise between lovers and haters of voir dire.

   4%
2. B

   Problem, not Solution21% picked this

   call attention to the effects of mass media on

   This answer makes it sound like the author wrote this passage just to publicize the Problem discussed in the 1st paragraph. But since the author ends with a Solution / Recommendation, then we have to consider that the primary reason why she wrote the passage. If she could only leave us with one sentence, it would be her solution/recommendation (found in the last couple sentences).

   21%
3. C

   Too Strong: ensure Wrong Solution5% picked this

   encourage judges to find new ways to ensure

   The author's solution doesn't have anything to do with judges doing new things. And it's very harsh to say that anything would ever ensure impartial jurors. The author's solution is more or less to stop considering the Problem a problem. She's saying, "Don't worry about the fact that many jurors will have some previous knowledge and even a previous opinion about a case. Trust that impartiality comes through the process of deliberation, not by each juror being a blank slate."

   5%
4. D

   Wrong Emphasis4% picked this

   debate critics who find fault with current voir

   Voir dire was just one of several potential solutions that the author presents but then undermines. The author's main agenda in writing this passage was to make the proposed Solution she offers in the final two sentences of the passage, not to debate critics how don't like voir dire. At no point is the author ever defending voir dire. She even seems to recognize the merit of the criticisms because she's saying, "some countries agree with these criticisms so much that they've abandoned using voir dire." The author is here to present a Solution, which this answer fails to capture.

   4%
5. E

   Correct67% picked this

   argue for a change in how courts address the problem

   Why this is right

   This sounds the most like "propose a Solution to the Problem of impartiality". The author has considered other people's attempts at solving the problem and then immediately presented ideas that undermine those solutions. In the end, she says that eliminating voir dire doesn't solve the impartiality problem. It just recognizes that voir dire ain't the solution. The solution, she says in the final two sentences, is to just redefine what we think "impartiality" means. Instead of trying to find jurors that are oblivious to the case they're going to be assigned to, courts can just think of an impartial jury as one that seems representative of the community's collective experience. If most people in the local community have already heard about the case and formed some opinions, then it's fine if most of the jurors have those characteristics too. That's because impartiality isn't about having 12 jurors who were a blank slate; it's the result of a process of deliberation between people.

   Skill tested: Primary Purpose · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

   67%