Reading Comprehension

PT142 · S3 · P2 · Q15 Stealing Thunder

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

“Stealing thunder” is a courtroom strategy that consists in a lawyer’s revealing negative information about a client before that information is revealed or elicited by an opposing lawyer.

Topic

"Stealing thunder" — the courtroom strategy of revealing a client's damaging information first — and the psychological reasons why it works (with limits).

Framework

Highlight Noteworthy. The author surveys evidence and psychological explanations for why the strategy works.

Main Point

Stealing thunder is corroborated as an effective strategy by simulated trials and supported by several psychological mechanisms (credibility, critical assessment, scarcity, framing) — though it has limits when information is very damaging.

P1: What stealing thunder is

A lawyer reveals negative client information before opposing counsel can. Pointless if the weakness is unknown or won't be exploited; otherwise, voluntary revelation is less damaging than hostile revelation.

P2: Why it works — research and three psychological explanations

No empirical research has tested the strategy in actual trials. But simulated-trial studies suggest it's effective within a reasonable range of applications. Lawyers' belief in the strategy is corroborated by experimental findings and supported by psychological explanations.

(1) Credibility: people who reveal information against their own interest are perceived as more credible (a finding from psychological research).

(2) Critical assessment: warning juries about upcoming attempts at persuasion makes them resist (in psychological experiments, audiences warned about persuasion become more resistant).

(3) Scarcity: a piece of evidence becomes "old news" once the prosecution and defense have both raised it; persuasive messages, like commodities, are valued more when scarcer.

P3: A fourth explanation — and a limitation

Stealing thunder works because the lawyer can frame the evidence in his/her own terms and downplay it (like political "spin"). But this works only when the information can be framed positively. Jurors initially have little information and want to solidify their position; they use the early positive framing to guide subsequent analysis. The strategy's limit: when information is very damaging, stealing thunder may create an early negative impression that becomes a cognitive framework jurors use to filter subsequent information.

15.

By saying that certain studies have suggested that in some applications, "the technique is, in fact, effective" (first sentence of the second paragraph), the author most likely means that those studies have given evidence that the technique in question

  1. Correct

    inclines juries to regard the

    Why this is right

    This ties back to the last sentence of the 1st paragraph. It's a comparison between our side voluntarily divulging (i.e. revealing) this negative information, hoping we can positively frame it, so that it will be less damaging than if we (otherwise) allowed opposing counsel to get the first chance to make this hostile revelation. In classic flipped syntax style, this is saying the negative information is viewed "more favorably" instead of that it's "less damaging", which of course mean the same thing.

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

    81% picked this

  2. is a reliable means, in

    Too Specific: set of counterarguments

    The success / failure of Stealing Thunder is just measured by whether you get a better outcome out of this damaging information than you would if you waited for opposing counsel to bring it up first. There is some discussion in the 2nd paragraph of "several psychological explanations of why the technique should work", one of which deals with counterargument: Stealing thunder may also provide juries with an impetus for critical assessment ... In psychological experiments, audiences formed counterarguments based on the early warning. Stealing thunder is often successful because it may lead the jury to form counterarguments to opposing counsel based on being warned early about this damaging information, but this question stem isn't asking for one of the reasons why stealing thunder is successful. The question wants us to actually define success, which is simply to make a damaging piece of information carry less negative weight for our client (however that occurs).

    8% picked this

  3. invariably results in cases being

    Too Strong: invariably

    The passage did not define Stealing Thunder as effective because it means your side is guaranteed to win the case (invariably results in cases being decided in your favor).

    3% picked this

  4. appears generally to succeed as

    Out of Scope: focus more

    Not only does this not match the definition we need ("effective at making a negative piece of information for your client less damaging than it would be if you let the other side bring it up"), it also brings up issues we didn't talk about in the passage, like forcefully capturing jurors' attention and leading to focus more than they would otherwise. Given that when we steal thunder, we're presenting negative information about our client, it doesn't even make good common sense to say that it works because it forcefully captures the attention of the jury and makes them focus more attentively on something bad about our client.

    3% picked this

  5. more often than not achieves

    Out of Scope: dramatically precede

    This answer is way too specifically about the precise timing of when you steal thunder. In the passage, the only timing we know or care about when it comes to stealing thunder is "sometime before the opposing side has brought up this incriminating fact". This answer is making it seem like it has to dramatically precede the opposing side's attempt to bring it up. Like we can hear the beginning of that sentence forming, we scream "Objection!", and then we dramatically steal their thunder by saying it right before the opposing lawyer was going to. The passage didn't describe anything like that. If anything, the earlier in the trial the better, so that by the time opposing counsel gets to talk about it, it feels like really old news.

    6% 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