ChaseDream

标题: lsat-20-3-15 [打印本页]

作者: entia 时间: 2004-12-17 19:38
标题: lsat-20-3-15

Questions 14-15 Politician: The mandatory jail sentences that became law two years ago for certain crimes have enhanced the integrity of our system of justice, for no longer are there two kinds of justice, the kind dispensed by lenient judges and the kind dispensed by severe ones. Public advocate: But with judges stripped of discretionary powers, there can be no leniency even where it would be appropriate. So juries now sometimes acquit a given defendant solely because the jurors feel that the mandatory sentence would be too harsh. Those juries, then, do not return an accurate verdict on the defendant's guilt. This is why it is imperative that the legislation instituting mandatory jail sentences be repealed.

15. Which one of the following principles, if valid, provides the politician with the strongest basis for countering the public advocate's argument? (A) Juries should always consider whether the sum of the evidence leaves any reasonable doubt concerning the defendant's guilt, and in all cases in which it does, they should acquit the defendant (B) A system of justice should clearly define what the specific actions are that judges are to perform within the system. (C) A system of justice should not require any legal expertise on the part of the people selected to serve on juries. (D) Changes in a system of justice in response to some undesirable feature of the system should be made as soon as possible once that feature has been recognized as undesirable. (E) Changes in a system of justice that produce undesirable consequences should be reversed only if it is not feasible to ameliorate those undesirable consequences through further modification.

我看不到题目中任何有关的红色字体的地方。为什么选e ？麻烦大家了。

作者: entia 时间: 2004-12-21 19:32
ding

作者: chelseayang 时间: 2004-12-21 23:43

The part that you marked is indeed not mentioned in the original text. It is new information.

the principle established in E is: a change in justice system can be repealed only under one condition, namely, further modification could not reduce the undesirable consequences brought out by the change.

It indicates that under any other circumstances, the change in the justice system (here, mandatory jail became law two years ago) should not be repealed. Therefore, the public advocate's reason for reversing the change is not justified.(his reason is: the change led to undesirable consequences.)

作者: entia 时间: 2004-12-23 09:43

谢谢！

作者: Bensontuo 时间: 2019-8-14 17:53

entia 发表于 2004-12-17 19:38
Questions 14-15 Politician: The mandatory jail sentences that became law two years ago for certain c ...

Spot the question type: Principle ( necessary assumption )

P - If mandatory jail sentences, no 2 kinds of the justice

PA - If mandatory jail sentence ---> no leniency even being appropriate ---> juries acquit ---> no accurate verdict ---> , mandatory jail sentences be repealed.

Pa's necessary assumption is, no other way that juries can know if it is too harsh or not.

If P have to object PA, all we have to do is too negate the necessary assumption of pa - At least one way that juries can know if it is too harsh or not.

E, perfect answer.

欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/)