Jurors Kaplan

Argument:

Give instructions to the jury at the beginning of the trial rather than at the end.
Why? This suggestion will permit jurors to concentrate on the most relevant evidence rather than on their own assumptions...

Wrong Answers: Will help us decide how strong or weak the argument is
Right answer: Will be least relevant in helping us evaluate the argument

A. "is it possible for a judge to instruct a jury at the end of a trial in such a way that jurors will disregard any irrelevant factors?"
No = strengthens the argument because it suggests that the conclusion is more likely true than not
Yes = weakens the argument because if instructing at the end is as effective as instructing at the beginning then we don't have a clear winner as the conclusion suggests

B. "will a jury that hears a judge's instruction at the beginning of a trial be able to weigh the evidence accordingly..?"
Yes = strengthens the argument because it improves the likelihood that the conclusion is true
No = weakens the argument because it reduces the likelihood that that the conclusion is true

C. "will having judges give instructions at the beginning of a trial rather than at the end significantly alter the customary procedures..?"
Yes = Unclear how this helps the argument because "customary procedures is not directly relevant to the issue at hand, i.e., whether jury members will focus on relevant factors or not. Also because of this reason, it is unclear how answering "Yes" hurts the argument.
No = Doesn't hurt the argument and it doesn't necessarily help it either because we still don't know how "customary procedures" directly affects the suggested policy.

D. "when jurors are queried as to how they arrived at their verdicts, does their interpretation of their decision-making process include many references to factors that were not, in fact, influential?".
Yes = strengthens the argument (enhances research evidence).
No = weakens the argument (weakens the connection between research and conclusion)

E. "if jurors hear the judge's instructions at the beginning of a trial, what percentage of the factors that influence their decisions will be matters that were not presented in the evidence?"
( >= 40%) = Strengthens the argument (enhances research evidence)
( < 40% ) = weakens the argument (weakens assumption drawn based on research evidence)

What do you think?

Simple than it looks..please find "customary procedures employed by the judicial system" in C
this is not discussed in the para.

chaitanya.mehrotra wrote:In interviews with jurors inquiring how they arrived at their verdicts, researchers found that 40% of the references jurors made were to factors that had not been included in courtroom testimony. to improve the jury system, the researchers suggested that judges give instructions to the jury at the beginning of a trial rather than at the end. they argued that this would permit jurors to concentrate on the most relevant evidence rather than filling in gaps with their own assumptions, which have little to do with the legality of a case.

question: the answer to which of the following questions is LEAST directly relevant to evaluating the researchers' suggestion above?

A. is it possible for a judge to instruct a jury at the end of a trial in such a way that jurors will disregard any irrelevant factors that had been using to weigh the evidence?

B.will a jury that hears a judge's instruction at the beginning of a trial be able to weigh the evidence accordingly once that evidence has actually been presented?

C.will having judges give instructions at the beginning of a trial rather than at the end significantly alter the customary procedures employed by the judicial system?

D. when jurors are queried as to how they arrived at their verdicts, does their interpretation of their decision-making process include many references to factors that were not, in fact, influential?

E. if jurors hear the judge's instructions at the beginning of a trial, what percentage of the factors that influence their decisions will be matters that were not presented in the evidence?

[spoiler]OA C How come C is correct . If the answer to this option is Yes then may be this new procedure might not be allowed ? The question does seems to be a bit relevant .[/spoiler]

This one looked lengthy and tough. Exceeded 2 minutes and also got the answer wrong. Some expert please help on this one.

Thanks.