It can be inferred from the passage that the author would be most likely to agree with which one of the following gen...
JazzyJanuary 8, 2022
A vs. D: Different chains of understanding
Hi LSATMax Team:
I chose D over A on this question and I think need some help to get my thoughts straight.
I was aware that the evidence for the answer lies on the very last sentence: "...primitive because it ignores . the research and conclusions of psychologists in (60) favor of notions about human cognition held by . lawyers. ". My comprehension is subsequently as follows:
1. there exist (a) research and conclusion psychologists and (b) human cognition held by lawyers, on the matter of juries' inferential errors.
2. Judges ignore (a) and rather prefer (b)
3. Judges' behavior on 2. is primitive.
I notice a fundamental dispute between A and D is that A thinks that (b) here is "less sophisticated" than (b). My understanding is that this tone tends to imply (a) and (b) to be contrasted, competing and diverted on topic matter. On the other hand, D seems to heavily imply that (a) and (b) are on the same boat.
My problem is that my assumption on the paragraph leans more on D than on A. While judges' behavior is primitive for doing 2. , it may be primitive because judges ignore (a) -- in other words, if judges take accounts in both (a) and (b), they may get better off. Wouldn't this, imply that (a) and (b) are working together hence not contrasted?
On the other hand, similarly, I didn't take defining judges' behavior as primitive to precisely imply that (b) is primitive to (a).
Since my rationale obviously led me to a wrong answer, can you help me evaluate my chains of thought and get them straight?
Thanks.
Replies
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
D says, "They have worked to help judges minimize jury inferential error."
Based on what the author is saying, lawyers advance "primitive" notions about jury inferential error (lines 54-57). From this, we know that lawyers are preventing judges from reaching a more sophisticated understanding of human decision-making that could help them minimize jury inferential error. So D is contradicted by the passage, so we can get rid of it.
A says, "They have a less sophisticated understanding of human cognition than do psychologists."
The author only talks about lawyers once in this passage, and that's when she's criticizing judges for having a "primitive" understanding of human decision-making. She states that judges' understanding is primitive because it "ignores the research and conclusion of psychologists in favor of notions about human cognition held by lawyers" (lines 54-57). So, the author suggests that lawyers have a more "primitive" or less sophisticated understanding of human cognition than psychologists do, which makes A the correct answer choice.
RaviJanuary 13, 2022
Let's take a look at A and D.
D says, "They have worked to help judges minimize jury inferential error."
Based on what the author is saying, lawyers advance "primitive" notions about jury inferential error (lines 54-57). From this, we know that lawyers are preventing judges from reaching a more sophisticated understanding of human decision-making that could help them minimize jury inferential error. So D is contradicted by the passage, so we can get rid of it.
A says, "They have a less sophisticated understanding of human cognition than do psychologists."
The author only talks about lawyers once in this passage, and that's when she's criticizing judges for having a "primitive" understanding of human decision-making. She states that judges' understanding is primitive because it "ignores the research and conclusion of psychologists in favor of notions about human cognition held by lawyers" (lines 54-57). So, the author suggests that lawyers have a more "primitive" or less sophisticated understanding of human cognition than psychologists do, which makes A the correct answer choice.
