Kaptest- Experts have a shot at this please

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 120
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 10:54 pm
Location: Delhi
Thanked: 5 times

Kaptest- Experts have a shot at this please

by bryan88 » Sat Mar 31, 2012 10:52 am
In interviews with jurors inquiring how they arrived at their verdicts, researchers found that 40 percent 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.

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 they had been using to weigh the evidence?
B)Will a jury that hears a judge's instructions 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)Were the methods and or interview processes used by the researchers biased in any way?
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?
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Legendary Member
Posts: 581
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 7:53 am
Thanked: 52 times
Followed by:5 members

by killer1387 » Sat Mar 31, 2012 8:48 pm
whole passage talks about the effect of instruction by judge at beginning on the jury.
Only C talks out of box.
Hence C should be correct.

OA??

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1248
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 2:57 pm
Location: Everywhere
Thanked: 503 times
Followed by:192 members
GMAT Score:780

by Bill@VeritasPrep » Sat Mar 31, 2012 9:34 pm
Essentially, we've got 4 answers that help us judge the suggestion and 1 that doesn't (this is the one we want).

The suggestion is to have judges give instructions before the trial rather than after.

A--Helps. One of the issues mentioned was jurors using irrelevant factors. If we know how the timing of instructions affects that, then we'll know if the suggestion is good.

B--Helps. A jury's job is to weigh the evidence presented. If we know how the timing of instructions affects their ability to do so, we can properly judge the suggestion.

C--Doesn't help. The customs of the judicial system are irrelevant both to the jurors arriving at their verdicts.

D--Helps. If we have more information about how the researchers arrived at their suggestion, we will be able to judge that suggestion more accurately.

E--Helps. If we know this percentage, then we can compare it to the same percentage (presented in the stimulus) that resulted from instructions occurring after the trial. This comparison will allow us to evaluate the suggestion.
Join Veritas Prep's 2010 Instructor of the Year, Matt Douglas for GMATT Mondays

Visit the Veritas Prep Blog

Try the FREE Veritas Prep Practice Test

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 120
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 10:54 pm
Location: Delhi
Thanked: 5 times

by bryan88 » Sun Apr 01, 2012 3:38 am
OA is C

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 53
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 7:44 pm
Thanked: 2 times

by agarwalmanoj2000 » Sun Apr 01, 2012 10:25 pm
IMO C

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?

If judge's instructions at the beginning of a trial rather than at the end permit jurors to concentrate on the most relevant evidence, then if needed customary procedures should be altered irrespective of significant or minor. This is irrelevant in evaluating the researchers suggestion.