Reading Comprehension

PT146 · S4 · P1 · Q1 Jury Nullification

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

Passage A Jury nullification occurs when the jury acquits the defendant in a criminal case in disregard of the judge’s instructions and contrary to the jury’s findings of fact.

Topic

Jury nullification: what it is, potential pros, and cons

Framework

Present Debate

Main Point

The two passages present contrasting opinions on jury nullification: Passage A focuses on its dangers and the problems it creates, while Passage B highlights its benefits as a check against rigid or unjust application of the law.

The Most Valuable Sentence for Passage A: (End of A, P1) The Most Valuable Sentence for Passage B: (B, P3)

Passage A: Argument Against Jury Nullification

P1: Definition and Problem Introduction Jury nullification means a jury acquits even though the law and facts say otherwise. Sometimes they show mercy, sometimes they're biased. The author says the power might not be used often, but it's still very problematic.

P2: Unknown Use and Accountability We can't even track how often jury nullification happens, or if it's being abused, because juries don't have to explain themselves.

P3: Lack of Necessary Information Juries might not have all the relevant info, like a defendant's past, since that's not usually admitted at trial, so they could make poorly informed decisions when they nullify.

P4: Juries Not Suited to Lawmaking Juries are not elected to shape laws or evaluate their impact—they aren't accountable to the public the way legislators and judges are.

P5: Disagreements Belong Elsewhere Law changes and debates should happen in public, through legislators, not in secret through jury verdicts.

Passage B: Argument in Favor of Jury Nullification

P1: Juries as a Safety Valve Police and prosecutors get to pick which laws to enforce, but sometimes they're too strict—juries can step in and soften the edges for minor or exceptional cases.

P2: Juries Help Adjust the Law to Real Life When a jury nullifies because it thinks the law shouldn’t apply in a real situation, it is actually helping legislatures who can’t predict every scenario when writing laws.

P3: Feedback for Lawmaking Jury nullification can send a signal to lawmakers that a law may be unjust or needs rethinking.

P4: Abuse Is Rare Due to Consensus Requirement Sure, sometimes nullification happens for wrong reasons, but that’s rare since all twelve jurors have to agree to nullify—a high bar.

Summary of the Debate

Passage A warns that jury nullification is dangerous and secretive, risking unfair and uninformed decisions, and steps on the proper role of the legislature. Passage B, on the other hand, says jury nullification is an important tool: it allows for mercy, corrects for rigid law enforcement, gives feedback to lawmakers, and is unlikely to be abused because juries rarely reach unanimous agreement to nullify unless the case is compelling.

1.

The author of passage B suggests that some laws justify the use of jury nullification because they are too

  1. complicated

    Unrelated to Goal

    We can't match "complicated" with "overly broad" or "unjust", which are the only concepts the passage offered us.

    6% picked this

  2. antiquated

    Unrelated to Goal

    We can't match "antiquated" (i.e. old-fashioned / out of touch) with "overly broad" or "unjust", which are the only concepts the passage offered us.

    3% picked this

  3. permissive

    Unrelated to Goal

    We can't match "permissive" (i.e. tolerant / forgiving) with "overly broad" or "unjust", which are the only concepts the passage offered us.

    2% picked this

  4. intrusive

    Weak Match

    We could try to match "intrusive" with "unjust", but they're definitely not synonyms. Being intrusive could be an unjust invasion of privacy, but it's a much more specific meaning than "unjust". An intrusive law means the law meddles too much in people's private affairs, and the author wasn't talking about anything like that.

    4% picked this

  5. Correct

    general

    Why this is right

    We can match "general" with "overly broad". A generalization is a broad claim. The 2nd paragraph discussed how during the formulation of a law, the legislature "creates general laws both because they cannot foresee every variation and because they must settle for broad language if any laws are to be passed". Because the law is written too generally, it applies to more people than it truly should, and the jury exercises its discretion through nullification when it seems like even though the general language of a law applies to a certain defendant, that defendant was not part of the intent of the law.

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

    85% picked this

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