Reading Comprehension

PT153 · S1 · P3 · Q15 Accomplice Witnesses And Jailhouse Informants

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

Criminal courts frequently rely on accomplice witnesses (witnesses who testify regarding the role of an alleged co-conspirator in a crime) and jailhouse informants (witnesses who provide testimony based on information obtained while incarcerated) for prosecutorial information.

Topic

The risks and unreliability of using cooperating witnesses (accomplice witnesses and jailhouse informants) in criminal trials, especially due to incentives for their testimony.

Framework

Problem / Solution

Main Point

Testimony from cooperating witnesses, which is often incentivized, is unreliable and can lead to false convictions because jurors and courts do not consistently recognize or adjust for the influence that these incentives have on witness and defendant behavior. (The most valuable encapsulating thought is found early in paragraph 2: )

P1: Introduction to Cooperating Witnesses

The passage starts by introducing two common types of cooperating witnesses in criminal cases—accomplice witnesses and jailhouse informants—whose testimony often involves supposed confessions from the accused.

P2: The Problem with Incentivized Testimony

Explains that witnesses are often motivated by incentives like reduced sentences, which can encourage them to fabricate evidence. Since lying informants are rarely punished, they have a strong incentive to provide false testimony.

P3: Judicial Safeguards and Their Limitations

Highlights that although courts claim safeguards (like cross-examination and disclosure of incentives) exist to protect the accused, these are not always effective. Sometimes, deals between prosecutors and witnesses are implied rather than explicit, so juries are left unaware.

15.

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

Evidence obtained through coercion, whether
Too Strong: never Too Specific: coercion
The author isn't saying that we can never regard this as reliable evidence. She's only stressing that jurors put more faith into it than they should. Also, calling bartered testimony "evidence obtained through coercion" is too specific. Some bartered testimony is obtained through coercion but the passage was not using those ideas interchangeably.
1% picked this
Correct
Numerous considerations suggest that the
Why this is right
This nicely captures "we have a legal problem: bartered testimony is prone to be flawed, since the people offering it are doing so for self-interested reasons, and the jurors hearing it put too much trust in its authenticity". The language about "convictions based on false testimony" didn't land well with me on a first read. It seems true on a common sense level, but I didn't remember hearing that emphasized in the passage. But when we research our qualms, we can see that this language is discussed at the beginning of the second paragraph. Courts hold that they adequately protect the accused against conviction based on false testimony, and naturally our author pivots with a "However, these safeguards do not always provide protection (against conviction based on false testimony".
Skill tested: Main Point · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.
54% picked this
Studies show that jurors give
Too Narrow
This is pretty good, but it only captures the last two paragraphs. It leaves out the conversation involving the skewed incentives of the prisoners / accomplices who are providing the bartered testimony. It feels like only half of the Main Point, because the problem the author is putting together is "the providers of the testimony have reason to fib" + "the people hearing the testimony aren't good at being properly skeptical".
12% picked this
Traditional legal arguments offered in
Out of Scope: traditional legal arguments
This passage didn't pit new studies against traditional legal arguments. The closest thing we have to that is "While courts have recognized .... " at the beginning of the 2nd paragraph. But the passage doesn't enumerate a set of assumptions and then counter them with studies.
20% picked this
There is substantial evidence to
Too Strong: substantial / heavily Too Narrow
While the author is certainly emphasizing the risk of inaccurate bartered testimony based on the incentives, we can't find lines in the passage that say "substantial evidence that testimony is heavily influenced". Furthermore, this answer would have the same downside that (C) had: it only captures half the problem. (E) focuses on the skewed incentives of the providers of bartered testimony. (C) focuses on the undue faith jurors put into bartered testimony. Our correct answer should feel like it's broad enough to cover both of those two central facets of the problem. Our correct answer says "numerous considerations", which leaves space for both of these things.
12% 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