Reading Comprehension

PT142 · S3 · P2 · Q9 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

“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.

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main point of the passage?

Although there are limits to
Contradicted: actual trials
The first sentence of the 2nd paragraph says, "no empirical research has directly tested the effectiveness of stealing thunder in actual trials", which contradicts the main clause of this answer.
22% picked this
The commonly practiced courtroom strategy
Wrong Emphasis / Too Narrow
The thrust of our main clause should be "stealing thunder is broadly effective and is supported by several psychological explanations of why it should work". This answer is zooming in on a caveat, a qualification, a disclaimer. The author didn't write this passage to primarily leave us with the warning that stealing thunder can have unintended consequences, and even when the author did mention cases where stealing thunder might backfire, it was about whether the information is very damaging, not about whether the lawyers accurately predict jurors' attitudes.
2% picked this
Correct
Lawyers' commonly held belief in
Why this is right
This matches up well with the 2nd sentence of the 2nd paragraph, which frames the discussion for the rest of the passage. The first paragraph basically just introduces the concept of stealing thunder, so we can forgive this answer for leaving out that paragraph. And the last couple sentences warn about fringe cases in which stealing thunder probably wouldn't work, but since the author's main thrust is that it does / should work, we wouldn't be concerned about not seeing caveats about when it wouldn't work. After this framing sentence appears in the 2nd sentence of the 2nd paragraph, it is supported by multiple ideas and the author gives us rhetorical reminders that she is still fleshing out this claim: - For one thing .... - Psychological research suggests ... - Stealing thunder may also provide X and thus Y .. - In psychological experiments, ... - Also, ... - A persuasive message will thus ... - In the courtroom, ... - Thus, ... - Finally, stealing thunder may work because ... The passage doesn't switch its purpose/focus until the pivot of However in the last paragraph, where the author then discusses the limitations of the technique, as a minor qualification to the main point. But we can see that the bulk of the sentences in the passage are supporting the idea that there are psychological explanations of why the technique should work.
Skill tested: Main Point · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.
47% picked this
The risks involved in stealing
Wrong Emphasis / Too Narrow
This is a better version of (B), because it more correctly states the instances in which stealing thunder would not be likely to work (the information is too negative to be framed positively). But the same overall problem remains: the thrust of our main clause should be "stealing thunder is broadly effective and is supported by several psychological explanations of why it should work". This answer is zooming in on a caveat, a qualification, a disclaimer. The author didn't write this passage to primarily leave us with the warning that stealing thunder can have unintended consequences. She wrote it to tell us about this technique that lawyers believe in, that seems to be effective in simulated trial situations, and that seems to be supported by several psychological explanations.
3% picked this
Research designed to confirm the
Too Strong: designed / vindicated
We don't have any evidence of research that was designed to confirm the usefulness of stealing thunder. The first sentence of the 2nd paragraph is saying that no empirical research has directly tested the effectiveness of stealing thunder. Some studies involving simulated trial situations have suggested that the technique is effective, at least within a reasonably broad range of applications. Using the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph to support the idea that "specifically designed research has vindicated lawyers' belief in the value" is too much of a stretch. That sentence is only saying that "some research has indirectly supported lawyers' belief". Finally, this answer choice says that this specially-designed research has identified the general limitations of the strategy's effectiveness. The limitations are discussed in the final paragraph, but there's nothing in the passage connecting the discussion in the final paragraph back to any research designed to confirm stealing thunder's usefulness.
26% 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