It can be inferred, based on their titles, that the relationship between which one of the following pairs of document...

Irina on August 30, 2019

@Minerva,

This is a fairly challenging question. Let's look at passage A & B.

Passage A starts off by providing reasons trial judges cite against independent fact-finding, then argues against an absolute prohibition of the practice citing the need for objective presentation of specialized knowledge and the limited possibility that judges would reach outlandish results due to the structure of the trial.

Passage B argues that regardless of what happens at the trial level, appellate courts should refrain from conducting independent research as they lack an opportunity to hear live testimony and thus put scientific facts into context. Since appellate court hearings are structurally different from trial ones, fact-finding by appellate courts would contradict their review function and substitute their research results that are unsubstantiated by expert witnesses.

Let's look at the answer choices:

Every answer choice appears to equate salt with judicial research.

(A) Negative Effects of Salt Consumption. Unhealthy Amounts of Salt in the Diet

Incorrect. The focus of passage A is not on negative impacts of judicial research but arguing that a complete ban is unwarranted.

(B) Salt Can be Beneficial for Some People . People with High Blood Pressure Should Avoid Salt

Correct. On a real test, I would probably mark this answer choice as a strong contender and briefly look at the rest of the options. The first title parallels passage A - judicial research could be beneficial in some cases, e.g. scientific evidence context. The second titles single our a specific group of people, similar to appellate judges in passage B - that should avoid salt - that should avoid independent fact-finding.

(C) Debunking the Alleged Danger Posed by Salt. Inconclusive Research Results on the Health Effects.

Incorrect. Passage A is not debunking trial judges' concerns -"while these concerns have some merit," but rather discusses limited cases where judicial research could be beneficial.

(D) Substitutes for Dietary Salt. Salt Substitutes Come Under Fire.

Incorrect. Passage A is not advocating for substitutes for judicial fact-finding, rather it says it could be valuable in a certain context.

(E) The Health Effects of Salt Consumption. Salt Deficiency in Sample Population.

Incorrect. Passage A mentions some of the concerns, i.e. "salt effects" associated with judicial research, but its focus is on the context where it could be useful.

Does this make sense?

Let me know if you have any further questions.

Minerva on September 10, 2019

This was a great explanation, thanks @Irina!