Answering a LSAT Logical Reasoning in RC Question Using LawHub Reading Comprehension Drill Set #4

Using a sample LSAT Reading Comprehension passage from free official practice resources at lawhub.lsac.org, MyGuru's LSAT expert, Stefan Maisnier, shows how to identify a Logical Reasoning in Reading Comprehension question task, in this case a strengthen the argument task, before engaging in a targeted read for the relevant claim in the passage, proactively predicting what would broadly strengthen the argument, and cross checking the answer choices against that mental prediction to expedite the process of elimination.

Please like this video if you find it helpful and subscribe to this channel to learn when new explanation videos become available.

Also, check out our full set of video explanations for every question in the free LSAT PrepTest 158:
https://www.udemy.com/course/lsat-pra...

To learn more about the LSAT or the law school application process, visit the MyGuru LSAT & Law School Admissions blog at www.myguruedge.com/our-thinking/lsat-and-the-law-school-admissions-process or visit https://www.myguruedge.com/book_intro... to book a free LSAT instruction consultation.

LSAC LawHub LSAT Reading Comprehension Drill Set 4, Passage 1:

This passage is adapted from a book published in 1979.

Videotape can be an expedient means of presenting witness testimony in court trials. An opponent of this practice, legal scholar S.J. Brakel, believes that videotape yields less-reliable testimony or lessens jurors' ability to assess witnesses' credibility. Witnesses, Brakel thinks, are better aware of the stringent truthfulness requirement and the penalties for perjury when they are actually present in the courtroom. Also, Brakel claims, videotape cannot capture in vivid detail the whole range of cues associated with testifying--paralinguistic cues, such as tone of voice, cadence, and pitch, and nonverbal cues that include gestures as well as involuntary signs of nervousness. The fact that phenomena such as failure to maintain eye contact with a questioner, fidgeting, and inappropriate tone of voice are considered in many cultures to signal deceit provides some anecdotal support for Brakel's claims.

Brakel's critics argue that witnesses giving their testimony outside the courtroom--in a lawyer's office or a recording studio--are adequately aware, if given a formal reminder, of the penalties for perjury. The critics also suggest that even truthful witnesses might, under the stress of testifying in court, forget or involuntarily repress information.

Brakel's arguments against videotaped testimony presume that witnesses' nonverbal and paralinguistic cues are a reliable basis for assessing veracity. But in court, it may be difficult for jurors to assimilate it all. This can trigger stereotyping strategies--judgments based on preconceptions rather than critical information--to simplify the task of assimilating information. Moreover, factors other than deceit--for example, a witness's anxiety about addressing a suspicious audience--can mimic the classic signs of deceit, thereby misleading jurors.

Relative to live testimony, videotape presents jurors with less information about witnesses' nonverbal cues. Moreover, videotaped witnesses, feeling less intimidated while testifying are less likely to present false signals of deception. It is reasonable to conclude, then, that if the amount of nonverbal information jurors receive is essentially unrelated, or even inversely related, to the accuracy of their judgments, videotaped testimony could be employed without reducing jurors' ability to detect deception.

These criticisms of Brakel's views have some empirical support. In one study, interviewees were asked to mingle lies and truth in their responses. Subjects who watched and listened to the live interviews rather than to any recorded version had only a 58 percent accuracy rate in detecting deception--whereas subject who merely read transcripts or heard audiotape recordings had a 77 percent accuracy rate. The researchers concluded that some visual cues may distract from other cues that more reliably indicate mendacity.

8. It can most reasonably be inferred from the passage that some of Brakel's critics believe that the full range of cues associated with live testimony

A) often causes witnesses to contradict themselves
B) usually disguises the evidence of perjury when it does occur
C) is often consciously exploited by witnesses to commit perjury
D) often causes jurors to become complacent
E) sometimes makes jurors apt to perceive a truthful witness as deceitful (Correct)