Faced with the problems of insufficient evidence

[S Soumita Ghosh]

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 judgment 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 behavior. That commonly held belief is at least a partial distortion of reality; not all former convicts engage in repeated criminal behavior. 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 defense 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 jeopardize the accuracy of the fact-finding process is not unknown to the courts. In fact, one of a presiding judge’s duties is to minimize 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 favor of notions about human cognition held by lawyers.



Que2 : “It can be inferred from the passage that the author would be most likely to agree with which of the following generalizations about lawyers?”

(A)They have a less sophisticated understanding of human cognition than do 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 minimize jury inferential error.
(E)They are unrealistic about the ability of jurors to ascertain the truth.

OA A

Can anyone explain me why not E?

In option E :Lawyers are unrealistic about the ability of jurors to ascertain the truth. It is given in the passage that jurors engage in the inferential exercise that lawyers call fact-finding. That means that jurors is engaged in drawing inference from the flawed perceptual, retentive, and narrative abilities of witnesses but lawyers name it as fact finding.

[A aditya8062]

i think u r reading at a wrong place
read it here

: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 favor of notions about human cognition held by lawyers.

especially the last line :it ignores the research and conclusions of psychologists in favor of notions about human cognition held by lawyers
this means that passage believes in statement A[/quote]

[L lj88]

I am still confused about the answer. Could someone explain why the last sentence leads to answer A?

[BTG Expert Team]

What we see: an inference question about lawyers. The right answer must follow from what the passage actually says about lawyers, and lawyers come up in only two places.

Step 1. Find every line about lawyers.
What we see: paragraph 1 says jurors do "the inferential exercise that lawyers call fact-finding." The last sentence says judges' idea of jury error is "primitive because it ignores the research and conclusions of psychologists in favor of notions about human cognition held by lawyers."
What it means: the first line only tells us what lawyers call the process. It gives no opinion about lawyers. The second line is the one with an opinion in it.
What we do and why: base the answer on the last sentence, because that is the only place the author judges lawyers.

Step 2. Read the last sentence closely.
What we see: the judges' concept is "primitive" because it uses lawyers' notions about how people think instead of psychologists' research.
What it means: the author ranks the two sources. Psychologists' research is the better one; lawyers' notions about human cognition are the cruder one. Put simply, lawyers understand how the mind works less well than psychologists do.
What we do and why: look for a choice that says exactly that, and nothing more.

Step 3. Test the choices.
• Lawyers have a less sophisticated understanding of human cognition than psychologists. This is Step 2 in other words. Keep it.
• Lawyers present complex evidence to confuse juries. The passage says complex evidence can confuse a jury, but never says lawyers do it on purpose. Out.
• Lawyers are no better at logic than judges. The passage never compares lawyers' and judges' reasoning at trial. Out.
• Lawyers have helped judges reduce jury error. The passage says reducing error is the judge's duty, and lawyers' notions are what hold judges back. Out.
• Lawyers are unrealistic about jurors' ability to find the truth. Nothing says lawyers expect too much or too little from jurors. The "fact-finding" line is just a name lawyers use for the process. Out.

The trap: (E). It feels right because the passage is all about jurors making mistakes, and lawyers call the process "fact-finding," which sounds hopeful. But a name is not a belief. The author never says what lawyers think jurors can do, so (E) asks us to invent an opinion.
Takeaway: on an inference question about one group, find every sentence that names that group and pick the choice that restates the one sentence where the author judges it. A label or a passing mention is not an opinion.

Answer: A