Although its purpose is laudable, the exclusionary rule, which forbids a court to consider evidence seized in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights, has unduly hampered law-enforcement efforts. Even when the rights violation was a minor or purely technical one, turning on a detail of procedure rather than on the abrogation of some fundamental liberty, and even when it has been clear that the police officers were acting in good faith, the evidence obtained has been considered tainted under this rule and may not even by introduced. In consequence, defendants who were undoubtedly guilty have been set free, perhaps to steal, rape, or murder again.
The author of the passage above assumes all of the following EXCEPT:
(A) The constitutional rights of criminal defendants should be protected.
(B) Most cases in which the exclusionary rule has been invoked have involved purely technical violations of constitutional principles.
(C) The number of cases whose outcome has been affected by the exclusionary rule is significant.
(D) Some of the defendants set free under the exclusionary rule have been guilty of serious criminal offenses.
(E) Merely technical violations of the rules concerning evidence should be treated differently from deliberate assaults upon human rights.
Why B?
It can be inferred from the passage that the author would most likely endorse which of the following proposals?
(A) Change of the exclusionary rule to admit evidence obtained by police officers acting in good faith
(B) A constitutional amendment curtailing some of the protections traditionally afforded those accused of a crime
(C) A statute limiting the application of the exclusionary rule to cases involving minor criminal offenses
(D) Change of the exclusionary rule to allow any evidence, no matter how obtained, to be introduced in court
(E) A constitutional amendment allowing police officers to obtain vital evidence by any means necessary when in pursuit of a known criminal
Why A?
I'm lost....
Conlusion: Although its purpose is laudable, the exclusionary rule, which forbids a court to consider evidence seized in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights, has unduly hampered law-enforcement efforts.
Premise: Even when the rights violation was a minor or purely technical one, turning on a detail of procedure rather than on the abrogation of some fundamental liberty, and even when it has been clear that the police officers were acting in good faith, the evidence obtained has been considered tainted under this rule and may not even by introduced.
Intermediate conclusion: In consequence, defendants who were undoubtedly guilty have been set free, perhaps to steal, rape, or murder again.
Oh, man, this shitty question stimulus is hard to understand and confusing.
The author of the passage above assumes all of the following EXCEPT:
This is an assumption type of question, use negation technique to negate each answer to see if it weakens the argument.
(A) The constitutional rights of criminal defendants should be protected.
Negate: The constitutional rights of criminal defendants should NOT be protected. This weakens the argument, it is the assumption of this argument.
(B) Most cases in which the exclusionary rule has been invoked have
involved purely technical violations of constitutional principles.
Negate: Most cases in which the exclusionary rule has been invoked have NOT involved purely technical violations of constitutional principles.
This did not weaken the argument, it is a little out of scope.
(C) The number of cases whose outcome has been affected by the exclusionary rule is significant.
Negate: The number of cases whose outcome has been affected by the exclusionary rule is not significant. This weakens the argument, it is the assumption of this argument.
(D) Some of the defendants set free under the exclusionary rule have been guilty of serious criminal offenses.
Negate: Some of the defendants set free under the exclusionary rule have NOT been guilty of serious criminal offenses. This weakens the argument; it is the assumption of this argument.
(E) Merely technical violations of the rules concerning evidence should be treated differently from deliberate assaults upon human rights.
Negate: Merely technical violations of the rules concerning evidence should NOT be treated differently from deliberate assaults upon human rights. This weakens the argument, it is the assumption of this argument.
It can be inferred from the passage that the author would most likely endorse which of the following proposals?
This is a inference type of question, we have to well understand the argument. Focus on the conclusion of this argument: exclusionary rule
unduly hampered law-enforcement efforts.
(A) Change of the exclusionary rule to admit evidence obtained by police officers acting in good faith
This is the right answer that provide a solution for the problem stated in argument.
(B) A constitutional amendment curtailing some of the protections traditionally afforded those accused of a crime
This is out of scope. “constitutional amendment” is a new word that never show up in the argument
(C) A statute limiting the application of the exclusionary rule to cases involving minor criminal offenses
Off scope
(D) Change of the exclusionary rule to allow any evidence, no matter how obtained, to be introduced in court
This expand the boundary of what the argument is provoking,
(E) A constitutional amendment allowing police officers to obtain vital evidence by any means necessary when in pursuit of a known criminal
Off scope
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |