Reading Comprehension

PT13 · S3 · P4 · Q25 Jury Inferential Errors

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

Faced with the problems of insufficient evidence, of conflicting evidence, and of evidence relayed through the flawed perceptual, retentive, and narrative abilities of witnesses, a jury is forced to draw inferences in its attempt to ascertain the truth.

Topic

How juries make inferential errors during trials, and how these errors can be misunderstood or mishandled by courts and judges.

Framework

Problem / Solution

Main Point

Jurors often draw mistaken conclusions from evidence due to predictable cognitive errors, but courts and judges generally have a limited understanding of how and why these errors occur, neglecting insights from cognitive psychology. The "Most Valuable Sentence" is: (last paragraph)

P1: Juries Must Infer—But Sometimes Go Wrong

Juries have to draw inferences from imperfect or incomplete evidence, and although they usually rely on the cognitive tools they've used in everyday life, those same tools can lead to errors when making decisions about the facts in a lawsuit.

P2: Examples of Inferential Errors

Most jury mistakes involve reading too much into evidence—like assuming someone is guilty because they've been convicted before, being swayed by graphic photos, or discounting testimony that's not delivered well. Sometimes, if there's too much or too confusing evidence, juries can even make completely unfounded decisions.

P3: Psychology Explains Why Errors Happen

Research in cognitive psychology shows that people make these kinds of mistakes in predictable ways, depending on the situation and the information available. This research could help courts understand when and why juries are likely to misinterpret evidence.

25.

Which one of the following statements, if true, would most seriously undermine the author’s suggestion about the use of current psychological research in the courtroom?

  1. All guidelines about human behavior

    No Impact

    The current research does provide some guidelines. This answer says those guidelines should take into account variations in the patterns of human decision-making. We have no reason to think that the research is ignoring variations in patterns, so we can't really use this answer as any way to critique the psychological research.

    2% picked this

  2. Correct

    Current models of how humans

    Why this is right

    We were told in the 2nd sentence of P3 that this recent psychological research is describing the kind of errors a person or group is likely to make. This answer is saying that their findings apply reliable to individuals but not to groups. Since judges would be using these findings to assess jury inferential error (a group), this answer does weaken. It's basically saying that even though the current research would be a reliable guideline for how individuals will act, it doesn't have reliable takeaways about how groups will act, and the author was suggesting that judges would try to use this research to better understand how juries will act.

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

    82% picked this

  3. The current conception of jury

    Opposite (if anything)

    If anything, this might strengthen the author's suggestion? This answer sounds like judges haven't updated their understanding of jury inferential error in 100 years, so they're likely overdue for some refinement.

    2% picked this

  4. Inferential errors can be more

    Opposite (if anything)

    This is sort of like the reverse of (B). It's saying the new research would probably be useful in the context of a courtroom but not as useful elsewhere.

    6% picked this

  5. In certain predictable circumstances, juries

    Opposite (if anything)

    If the variations in jury inferential errors are tied to certain predictable circumstances, then this research is easier to apply. When we are in those certain circumstances, we'll understand they're less likely to make errors, and when we're not in those certain circumstances, we'll know that they're more likely to make errors.

    8% 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