It can be inferred from the passage that the author would be most likely to agree with which one of the following gen...

Mazen April 23, 2020

Please help with the phraseology of the last sentence of the passage

Hello, The part that I am interested in is the last segment of the last sentence of the passage. It states: "primitive because it ignores the research and conclusions of psychologists in favor of notions about human cognition held by lawyers." What agonized me is the phrase "psychologists in favor of." What it really means is that the judges are ignoring X in favor of Y; and by the way lawyers are also in favor of Y; therefore they too are primitive (or less sophisticated) because like the judges they are ignoring X. But what should have signaled to me that the "in favor of" refers to the judges and not to the psychologists? The correct interpretation is: the judges's jury instructions, which are aimed at reducing inferential errors, are "primitive." These instructions are primitive because they favor notions about human cognition -- notions that are held by lawyers -- over the research and conclusions of psychologists. My question is: Is the subsequent interpretation, which I now know is false, so obviously wrong? And if so, what did I miss, specifically, that should have indicated to me that it is a misinterpretation? The misinterpretation I had is the following: The jury instructions are primitive because they ignore the research and conclusions of psychologists. It is these psychologists's research and conclusions that are in favor of notions about human cognition. And the lawyers, they too are in favor of the psychologists' notions about human cognition. The proof is that these notions are held by the lawyers. In other words, the judges' instructions are primitive because they ignore notions about human cognition, notions that are not only held by lawyers but also the product of psychologists' research and conclusions. From this misinterpretation, it seems that the lawyers and the psychologists are on the same team. And why wouldn't they be? the passage's implication is that juries' erroneous inferences are prejudiced against defense attorneys, for example recidivism, photographs... Obviously, I am wrong. But what should have flagged my misinterpretation? Thank you

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

Mazen April 27, 2020

No need to answer this post. When I read the last paragraph out loud, it made perfect sense. Or better stated, it did not make sense any other way, including the misinterpretation elaborated on in the post above.

When I first read it with my eyes though, for some reason, I got hung up on the fact that simply missing a comma after "psychologists" may have changed the obviously correct interpretation which is: the judges abandon the psychologists' research and conclusions in favor ideas that are held by attorneys. In all honesty, a comma after the word "psychologists" would have helped, and is perhaps grammatically required.

If the passage was written as: "primitive because it ignores the research and conclusions of psychologists[,] in favor of notions about human cognition held by lawyers."

as opposed to the way it is written: "primitive because it ignores the research and conclusions of psychologists [NO COMMA] in favor of notions about human cognition held by lawyers."

Thank you