求解逻辑题目一枚，复习复习好好地突然瞬间啥都看不懂了

难看的任 · 发表于 2014-10-4 14:26:08

Juries in criminal trials do not base verdicts on uncorroborated testimony given by any one witness.Rightly so , because it is usually prudent to be highly skeptical of unsubstantiated claims made by anyone person.But then , to be consistent,juries should end an all-too-common practice :convicting defendants on the basis of an uncorroborated full confession.
Which of following, if ture , most strengthens the argument above?
A:Juries often acquit in cases in which a defendant retracts a full confession made before trial

B:The process of injury seletion is designed to screeen out people who have a firm opinion ablout the defendant's guilt in adance of the trial

C:defendants sometimes make full confession when they did in fact do what they are accused of doing and have come to believe that the prosecutor has compelling proof of this

D:Highly suggestible people who are accused of wrongdoing sometimes become so unsure of their own recollection of the past that they can come to accept the accusations made against them

E:Many people believe that juries should not convict defendants who have no made full confession答案是D求解释！

lainemai · 发表于 2014-10-6 10:13:48

Juries in criminal trials do not base verdicts on uncorroborated testimony given by any one witness.Rightly so , because it is usually prudent to be highly skeptical of unsubstantiated claims made by anyone person.But then , to be consistent,juries should end an all-too-common practice :convicting defendants on the basis of an uncorroborated full confession.
就是说陪审团一般不以那种目击者未经证实的证词来宣判罪名。这样做是因为高度怀疑任何人未经证实的说法的做法是小心谨慎的。但是有的时候，为了一致性，陪审团会经常做出这样常见的举措：为了和未经证实的证词一样去判定被告有罪

[逻辑小分队] 求解逻辑题目一枚，复习复习好好地突然瞬间啥都看不懂了

所属分类: GMAT考试

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()