Reading Comprehension

PT113 · S1 · P1 · Q4 Jury Unanimity

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 jury trial is one of the handful of democratic institutions that allow individual citizens, rather than the government, to make important societal decisions.

Topic

Whether the unanimity requirement for jury verdicts in serious criminal cases should be retained or relaxed.

Framework

Present Debate. The author defends the unanimity requirement against critics who would relax it.

Main Point

The unanimity requirement should be kept: its costs (occasional hung juries, retrials) are far outweighed by its benefits — it deters unjust verdicts, protects deliberation, and supports public confidence in the system.

P1: The institution and the critics' challenge

Jury trials are a rare democratic institution that lets citizens decide. In serious criminal cases, verdicts must be unanimous, which forces full deliberation. Critics see unanimity as a costly relic that can be derailed by a single recalcitrant juror; some recommend reducing the requirement to less than unanimity.

P2: Costs are outweighed by benefits — and hung juries don't indicate failure

Material costs of hung juries don't warrant losing unanimity's benefit. Jury trials are rare; hung juries are a small fraction of those. And hung juries usually reflect close cases — a sign the system is working, not failing. A hung jury is preferable to an unjust verdict.

P3: Unanimity protects fairness and the deliberation process

Innocent people are already occasionally convicted; eliminating unanimity would only increase that risk. If a dissenter's opinion can be dismissed easily, deliberation suffers — every juror's opinion deserves a fair hearing. Otherwise the verdict can't be said to represent the whole jury, and public confidence in the verdict is undermined.

4.

Which one of the following sentences could most logically be added to the end of the last paragraph of the passage?

  1. It is not surprising, then,

    Out of Scope: separate tradition

    This doesn't have any connective tissue to the previous sentence. It seems to just be circling back to the critics in the 1st paragraph and other-ing them. "They're not even part of our legal tradition, guys! Let's get 'em!" We never talked about any legal tradition in the passage, so this is pretty out there.

    5% picked this

  2. Similarly, if there is a

    Too Wishy-Washy

    This seems somewhat tempting, since "public debate" seems similar to "jury deliberation" from the previous two sentences. But, in the previous two sentences, the author is endorsing the idea that we need a unanimous decision from the jury in order for public faith in the verdict to be strong. Would the author think that similarly we need a unanimous decision from the public in order for public faith in the requirement to be strengthened? The author is convinced of the rightness of the unanimity requirement. Opening up that subject for public debate represents retreating from the author's point of view, from her conviction that the costs of the unanimity requirement do not warrant losing it. She wrote this passage to shut down the debate of critics who are asking if we should get rid of it.

    8% picked this

  3. Correct

    The opinion of each juror

    Why this is right

    This has some clear tie-in to the preceding two sentences, since it's emphasizing the need to give fair hearing to each juror's opinion. It also has strong language, which makes it sound kind of corny and not likely to be right. But is the author convinced we should keep the unanimity requirement? Yes. So would this serve her rhetorical purposes as an ending sentence? Yes. Why are we talking about voting / democracy? Good question. It's actually a bookend to the first sentence of the passage, in which the author connects the jury trial to "the handful of ways that allow individual citizens, rather than the government, to make important societal decisions". There's no reason we'd predict an ending like this, but it conforms to the author's rhetorical purposes. It's bothersome how the extreme tone of it doesn't sound much like this author, but LSAC would argue that all the other choices are worse.

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

    84% picked this

  4. Unfortunately, because some lawmakers have

    Too Strong: integrity of entire system

    The author is more likely to end this passage with a, "As you can see, the unanimity requirement rules. Peace out." than this, "as you can see, the critics have jeopardized the integrity of the entire legal system".

    2% picked this

  5. But even without the unanimity

    Weakens Author's Position

    This goes even farther than (B) in retreating from the author's position. The author wrote this passage to defend the unanimity requirement. We want the answer we pick to leave us with that taste in our mouths. This answer would make it sound like the author was dithering on the issue, "I know I just spent a couple paragraphs defending it, but even if we ditch unanimity ... "

    1% 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