The argument most clearly assumes which of the following?
Juries in many countries deliver verdicts without explanation. Defenders of the practice say that secrecy protects jurors from pressure and lets them apply common sense without legal technicalities. But a verdict that comes with no reasons cannot be properly appealed, since a higher court cannot tell whether the jury misunderstood the law or simply doubted a witness. A judge who convicts must write a judgment that exposes the logic to criticism, and there is no obvious reason why twelve citizens should be exempt from the same discipline. It may be replied that reasons would be artificial, invented after the event. Yet that is an argument for improving how reasons are gathered, not for abandoning them. A system that can ask a defendant to accept being locked away should be able to say why.
Answer and explanation
Correct answer: B. The value of being able to appeal outweighs any loss to jurors' freedom from pressure
- Step 1: The author admits the defenders' point that secrecy protects jurors, yet still demands reasons.
- Step 2: That only makes sense if the author thinks the benefit of reviewable verdicts is greater than the cost to jury freedom.
Answer
The value of being able to appeal outweighs any loss to jurors' freedom from pressure.
Why not the others: The author does not claim jurors misunderstand law more often, that appeals are universal, that common sense is useless, or that written reasons are always more accurate.
Practise more Courts and juries.
Free questions with an explanation for every one, and full timed LNAT mock tests.