Defense Lawyers

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct80% picked this

   In keeping with this role, defense lawyers should base their cases upon the foundations of honesty,

   Why this is right

   Nothing here goes astray, and it seems to reinforce the big point. The foundations of "honesty and substantive accuracy" underscore the main point about "don't lie to the court; if you know your client is guilty, don't try to argue that they're not guilty. Just do the best job you can to advocate for their rights, given the facts of the case." The part about "selectivity" is a reference to the 2nd to last sentence about selecting clients you feel good about representing: "the fact that every client is entitled to a defense lawyer doesn't mean that defense lawyers should take every case they're offered (i.e. they should be selective about which cases they take)."

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

   80%
2. B

   Too Strong / New Topic: morally dubious1% picked this

   Therefore, the practice of law remains morally dubious, in that misrepresentation may achieve acquittal for

   It's a very large, sweeping indictment to say "the practice of law remains morally dubious". Whoa! You think that the practice of law, overall, is morally sketchy? That seems like a really bold claim, since most people associate the practice of law with justice / principles / ethics. This passage was narrowly about whether defense lawyers should believe their clients, not about whether the whole field of law was morally problematic.

   1%
3. C

   Contradicts Earlier7% picked this

   Consequently, the defendant’s right to legal representation varies from case to case, depending on the severity of the alleged crime and the defense

   The passage says, "the fact that every client is entitled to a defense", so the author does not believe that the defendant's right to legal representation varies from case to case. There is an earlier sentence that says, "guilty defendants should not be entitled to false or insincere representation" that might confuse some. The author there isn't saying that a guilty defendant might not be entitled to legal representation. She's saying that they're not entitled to "legal representation that is willing to lie on their behalf".

   7%
4. D

   New Topic10% picked this

   Thus, the lawyers’ obligations are threefold—to be faithful to the dictates of the court, society, and themselves by proving their professional worth in securing

   New Topic: proving professional worth Goes Against Main Point The passage is never suggesting that defense lawyers are obliged to prove their professional worth by securing acquittals. This principle would mean that even if you think your client is guilty, you have to prove your professional worth by trying to get them a "not guilty" acquittal. The author thinks that a good, professionally worthwhile defense lawyer will sometimes assess that their client is guilty and not seek an acquittal at all. Rather, they will argue for "whatever degree of leniency in sentencing they feel is warranted".

   10%
5. E

   New Topic: judges interrogating lawyers1% picked this

   Therefore, judges or other officials of the court should interrogate defense attorneys regarding any prior knowledge they may have of

   This is a good example of ending the passage with a brand new idea. We never talked about this concept of a judge asking the defense attorney, "So ... is your client guilty? What do you know about whether they're guilty or not?" That should offend our common sense of how trials are conducted. Judges don't usually "cut to the chase" and skip the trial by just asking the defense attorney whether the defendant is guilty.

   1%