Reading Comprehension

PT121 · S2 · P4 · Q23 Leading Questions

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

Leading questions—questions worded in such a way as to suggest a particular answer—can yield unreliable testimony either by design, as when a lawyer tries to trick a witness into affirming a particular version of the evidence of a case, or by accident, when a questioner unintentionally prejudices the witness’s response.

Topic

Leading questions

Framework

Problem / Solution, or Old / New

The passage is primarily about the Problem of leading questions, but there isn't a Solution discussed.

And the passage is primarily about our New, better understanding of the danger of leading questions, but there's not much time spent on our Old mindset of knowing-less about leading questions / not seeing them as problematic.

Main Point

NEW/PROBLEM Recent studies are making us more aware of some problematic aspects of leading questions and of the underlying conditions that give rise to these problems.

Summary

P1 - Intro to Topic, Pivot into Problem

The author introduces us to leading questions and establishes that while leading question re a known problem in the courtroom (which is why judges may disallow them), they are a less-appreciated problem outside the courtroom. The "But" in the middle of this paragraph is one of those classic Author Pivot moments that pulls into focus the foreground of what we'll be discussing.

P2 - New research findings on leading questions

This paragraph presents our emerging understanding from new research, about how leading questions asked pre-courtroom could still bias witness testimony. Our memories have fuzzy details and incomplete details, and new information contained in a leading question that doesn't conflict with our memory will basically be absorbed into our memory. An example is provided in which an eyewitness comes to have a belief about a stop sign via a leading question.

The first sentence of this paragraph has the famous Author Pivot word of "Recent", and this sentence ultimately seems like our closest thing to a Main Point sentence.

P3 - Further implications of New research

This paragraph just continues to flesh out the research findings. It emphasizes that those fuzzy details are usually things that are distant in time and weren't super germane to the original memory. Since we're most likely to be misled by leading questions when it comes to tangential details like someone's shoes, or car, or hair, etc. the fact that many eyewitnesses are relied upon to give identifying testimony regarding small details like that highlights the danger of how leading questions could have important ramifications.

23.

In discussing the tangential details of events, the passage contrasts their original significance to witnesses with their possible significance in the courtroom (last two sentences of the passage). That contrast is most closely analogous to which one of the following?

  1. For purposes of flavor and

    Weak Match

    We have something that is important to Thing 1, but we're missing the idea that this same thing is unimportant to Thing 2. We're really just saying that something is important, but not essential, to Thing 1 because there are other ingredients that could do the same thing. A correct answer would be something like "salt and vinegar are important additions to cucumbers for pickling, but they're unimportant additions to potato chips."

    2% picked this

  2. For the purpose of adding

    Bad Match

    We want to see that a certain Thing is tangential to one audience but crucial to another audience. Here, it's saying we add the Thing for a stimulant effect, or we subtract the Thing somewhere else for a health-conscious effect.

    4% picked this

  3. For purposes of flavor and

    Almost Matches

    We're talking about the same thing (fruit skin), but we're not saying it's tangential here but essential there. Instead, we're saying it's not wanted here but essential there. Details like hair length and shirt color weren't unwanted by the witnesses, they were just unimportant.

    9% picked this

  4. Correct

    For purposes of flavor and

    Why this is right

    This ends up being our closest match. A certain thing (wheat germ) is not needed (i.e. tangential) in one context but it's important (i.e. crucial) in another context. I'm bothered by the fact that important isn't quite as strong as crucial, in that I think of 'crucial' as conveying 'necessary', whereas 'important' to me doesn't mean necessary. But this is still the best match we're offered.

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

    75% picked this

  5. For purposes of texture and

    Weak Match

    This one, like (A), doesn't have two different entities or audiences. It's saying some Thing (fat) is removed for one reason (texture/appearance ... is that tangential?) and also removed for an important reason (health). If this answer had said, "removing fat from sausage is done for cosmetic reasons that don't really matter, whereas removing fat from milk is done for important health reasons". In the passage, a certain thing (hair style / shirt color) was unimportant in one setting but important in another setting. In this answer, a certain thing (removing fat) in one setting (sausage) has an unimportant (?) purpose and an important purpose.

    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