Let's go through these answer choices, and I will show you where I found support for D.
A. The comparison between these confession types was meant to demonstrate that the psychological phenomenon mentioned in paragraph 5 applies to both. There was no comparison of the consideration given by jurors.
B. We were never given the rules for offering incentives.
C. The author seems to believe that neither type of testimony is particularly reliable, as both of them can be tied to incentives.
D. See line 16: "One recent study concluded that lying informants are rarely prosecuted and therefore have much to gain and little to lose by testifying falsely."
E. We don't know if some jurors are more able than others to discern if a victim is lying.
alicat6August 23, 2020
You say that A is based off of a psychological phenomenon opposed to real jurors, and that is why it wrong. A lot of reading comp passages use psychological studies to explain viewpoints/as evidence. When these studies are brought up, are we to take them as merely psychological phenomenon, because it is LIKELY they will happen in real life, but there is no proof that they happen in real life? For example, in the 5th paragraph fake jurors in a study do certain things, and the author suggests this could happen to jurors in real life. Are we supposed to take this info as purely a phenomenon and not as evidence for what actual jurors in a trial do?
