Stealing Thunder

Answer choices

1. A

   Contradicted: actual trials22% picked this

   Although there are limits to the usefulness of stealing thunder, its effectiveness in actual trials has been demonstrated through research conducted

   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%
2. B

   Wrong Emphasis / Too Narrow2% picked this

   The commonly practiced courtroom strategy of stealing thunder can have unintended consequences if the lawyers using it do

   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%
3. C

   Correct47% picked this

   Lawyers' commonly held belief in the value of stealing thunder is supported by several psychological explanations of how

   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%
4. D

   Wrong Emphasis / Too Narrow3% picked this

   The risks involved in stealing thunder can outweigh the probable benefits when the information to be revealed is too readily available or

   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%
5. E

   Too Strong: designed / vindicated27% picked this

   Research designed to confirm the usefulness of stealing thunder has vindicated lawyers' belief in the value of the technique and has identified the

   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.

   27%