Faced With the Problems of Insufficient Evidence, of Conflicting Evidence, and of Evidence Relayed

Reading Passage Question

Faced with the problems of insufficient evidence, of conflicting evidence, and of evidence relayed through the flawed perceptual, retentive, and narrative abilities of witnesses, a jury is forced to draw inferences in its attempt to ascertain the truth. By applying the same cognitive tools they have developed and used over a lifetime, jurors engage in the inferential exercise that lawyers call fact-finding. In certain decision-making contexts that are relevant to the trial of lawsuits, however, these normally reliable cognitive tools may cause jurors to commit inferential errors that distort rather than reveal the truth.

Although juries can make a variety of inferential errors, most of these mistakes in judgement involve the drawing of an unwarranted conclusion from the evidence, that is, in reality, it does not prove. For example, evidence that the defendant in a criminal prosecution has a prior conviction may encourage jurors to presume the defendant’s guilt, because of their preconception that a person previously convicted of a crime must be inclined toward repeated criminal behaviour. That commonly held belief is at least a partial distortion of reality; not all former convicts engage in repeated criminal behaviour. Also, a jury may give more probative weight than objective analysis would allow to vivid photographic evidence depicting a shooting victim’s wounds, or may underestimate the weight of defence testimony that is not delivered in a sufficiently forceful or persuasive manner. Finally, complex or voluminous evidence might be so confusing to a jury that its members would draw totally unwarranted conclusions or even ignore the evidence entirely.

Recent empirical research in cognitive psychology suggests that people tend to commit inferential errors like these under certain predictable circumstances. By examining the available information, the situation, and the type of decision being made, cognitive psychologists can describe the kinds of inferential errors a person or a group is likely to make. These patterns of human decision-making may provide the courts with a guide to evaluating the effect of evidence on the reliability of the jury’s inferential processes in certain situations.

The fact that juries can commit inferential errors that jeopardise the accuracy of the fact-finding process is not unknown to the courts. In fact, one of a presiding judge’s duties is to minimise jury inferential error through explanation and clarification. Nonetheless, most judges now employ only a limited and primitive concept of jury inferential error: limited because it fails to recognize the potential for errors outside certain traditional situations, primitive because it ignores the research and conclusions of psychologists in favour of notions about human cognition held by lawyers.

“Faced with the problems of insufficient evidence, of conflicting evidence, and of evidence relayed”- is a GMAT reading comprehension passage with answers. Candidates need a strong knowledge of English GMAT reading comprehension.

This GMAT Reading Comprehension consists of 7 comprehension questions. The GMAT Reading Comprehension questions are designed for testing candidates’ abilities in understanding, analyzing, and applying information or concepts. Candidates can actively prepare with the help of GMAT Reading Comprehension Practice Questions.

Solution and explanation

  1. Which of the following best explains the main idea of the passage?

(A). When making decisions in certain predictable situations, juries may commit inferential errors that obscure rather than reveal the truth.
(B). The views of human cognition held by psychologists on the one hand and by the legal profession are demonstrably dissimilar.
(C). When confronting powerful preconceptions, particularly shocking evidence, or complex situations, jurors make errors in judgement.
(D). The problem of inferential error by juries is typical of the difficulties with cognitive processes that people face in their everyday lives.
(E). Juries would probably make more reliable decisions if cognitive psychologists, rather than judges, instructed them about the problems inherent in drawing unwarranted conclusions.

Answer: A
Explanation: it can be inferred from the passage that the main idea revolves around the decisions made in predictable situations by the juries. However, they may commit inferential errors that rather than revealing the truth makes an obscure situation.

  1. Of the following hypothetical reforms in trial procedure, which one would the author be most likely to support as the best way to address the problem of jury inferential error?

(A) a move away from jury trials
(B) the institution of minimum formal educational requirements for jurors
(C) the development of strict guidelines for defence testimony
(D) specific training for judges in the area of jury instruction
(E) restrictions on lawyers’ use of psychological research

Answer: D
Explanation: in order to address the problem of jury inferential error, a hypothetical reform has been considered by the author. This training for judges in any area of jurisdiction would be supported by the author. This is because the existing judges employ primitive and limited concepts of inferential error. This implies that judges are in favour of notions of cognitive behaviour of humans by the lawyers rather than psychologists. It is limited because outside traditional situations potential errors are not recognised.

  1. In the second paragraph, the author’s primary purpose is to

(A) refute the idea that the fact-finding process is a complicated exercise
(B) emphasise how carefully evidence must be presented in order to avoid jury inferential error
(C) explain how commonly held beliefs affect the Jury’s ability to ascertain the truth
(D) provide examples of situations that may precipitate jury errors
(E) recommend a method for minimising mistakes by juries

Answer: D
Explanation: the primary purpose of the author in the 2nd paragraph is to provide examples of different situations that judy errors may be endured.

  1. Which one of the following best describes the author’s attitude toward the majority of judges today?

(A) apprehensive about whether they are consistent in their instruction of juries
(B) doubtful of their ability to draw consistently correct conclusions based on the evidence
(C) critical of their failure to take into account potentially helpful research
(D) pessimistic about their willingness to make significant changes in trial procedure
(E) concerned about their allowing the presentation of complex and voluminous evidence in the courtroom

Answer: C
Explanation: The author considers that the majority of the judges today fail to identify any potential inferential errors unless there is a traditional situation. Further, they also fail to recognise the psychologist's view and favours the human cognition by lawyers.

  1. Which one of the following statements, if true, would most seriously undermine the author’s suggestion about the use of current psychological research in the courtroom?

(A) All guidelines about human behaviour must take account of variations in the patterns of human decision-making.
(B) Current models of how humans make decisions apply reliably to individuals but do not hold for decisions made by groups.
(C) The current conception of jury inferential error employed by judges has been in use for nearly a century.
(D) Inferential errors can be more easily predicted in controlled situations such as the trial of lawsuits than in other kinds of decision making processes.
(E) In certain predictable circumstances, juries are less susceptible to inferential errors than they are in other circumstances.

Answer: B
Explanation: if the human made decisions do not uphold decisions made by groups and are applicable on individuals, then the author's suggestion to would be undermined.

  1. It can be inferred from the passage that the author would be most likely to agree with which of the following generalisations about lawyers?

(A) They have a less sophisticated understanding of human cognition than psychologists.
(B) They often present complex or voluminous information merely in order to confuse a jury.
(C) They are no better at making logical inferences from the testimony at a trial than are most judges.
(D) They have worked to help judges minimise jury inferential error.
(E) They are unrealistic about the ability of jurors to ascertain the truth.

Answer: A
Explanation: the fact that lawyers focus on human cognitions which are only remotely related to psychological research is a generalised view agreed by the author.

  1. The author would be most likely to agree with which one of the following generalisations about a jury’s decision making process?

(A) The more evidence a jury has, the more likely it is that the jury will reach a reliable verdict.
(B) Juries usually overestimate the value of visual evidence such as photographs.
(C) Jurors have preconceptions about the behaviour of defendants that prevent them from making an objective analysis of the evidence in a criminal trial.
(D) Most of the jurors who make inferential errors during a trial do so because they are unaccustomed to having to make difficult decisions based on inferences.
(E) The manner in which evidence is presented to a jury may influence the jury either to overestimate or to underestimate the value of that evidence.

Answer: E
Explanation: the jury may certainly overestimate any evidence provided by the victim in terms of photographic evidence. Further, it may underestimate the defence testimony which may not be presented in a persuasive manner.

Suggested GMAT Reading Comprehension Questions

Fees Structure

CategoryState
General15556

In case of any inaccuracy, Notify Us! 

Comments


No Comments To Show