Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Easy

PT136 S2 Q3 Explanation

Lawyer: Juries are traditionally given their instructions

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

TopicsStrengthen

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Stimulus

Lawyer: Juries are traditionally given their instructions in convoluted, legalistic language. The verbiage is intended to make the instructions more precise, but greater precision is of little use if most jurors have difficulty understanding the instructions. Since it is more important for jurors to have a basic but adequate understanding of their precisely specified, jury instructions should be formulated in simple, easily comprehensible language.

What this question is testing

Strengthen

Your task

Find the choice that makes the argument's conclusion more likely to be true.

Common trap

Answers that are consistent with the argument but add no real support, or that strengthen a claim the argument doesn't make.

Winning move

Locate the gap between evidence and conclusion, then pick the choice that closes it.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
3.

Each of the following, if true, strengthens the lawyer's

Answer choices

  1. Trap1% picked this

    Most jurors are less likely to understand instructions given in convoluted, legalistic language than instructions given in

  2. Trap0% picked this

    Most jurors do not have an adequate understanding of their role after being given jury instructions

  3. Trap2% picked this

    Jury instructions formulated in simple, easily comprehensible language can adequately describe the role

  4. Correct90% picked this

    The details of the role of the jurors cannot be specified with complete precision in

    Why this is right

    Answer D is correct.

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

  5. Trap7% picked this

    Jurors do not need to know the precise details of their role in order to have an adequate

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

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