Q25 - In Ancient Greece, court

[jamiejames]

Could someone explain why A is wrong and C is correct? Thank you!

[ohthatpatrick]

Sure thing. Let's break down the Argument Core to make sure we're on the same page.

prem (technically, a subsidiary conclusion, since this idea has its own supporting premise):
important for litigants to make good impression on jurors

conc:
what litigants said tells us about common conceptions of morality held by citizens

What's the gap between these two ideas?

What the heck does "making a good impression on jurors" have to do with "common conceptions of morality"?

The author must be assuming that the litigators appealed to the jurors' common conceptions of morality in order to try to make a good impression. An answer that establishes this sort of link would definitely forge a connection between the premise and the conclusion.

A) Hmmm. It seems like a partial match for the Core. We're concerned about "impressing jurors" in the Prem. But is "whose personality they preferred" a good match for "common conceptions of morality"? No.

B) Another partial match. Here we discuss the Conc idea about "moral codes", but we introduce some irrelevant distinction between jurors and non-jurors.

C) We have a match! The Prem was talking about litigators wanting "to impress jurors", and the Conc was talking about "common conceptions of morality". And this answer sounds like what we predicted from the outset: the author must have believed that litigators tried to appeal to the jurors' common conceptions of morality in order to impress the jurors.

D) "impressed" matches premise, but "same economic class" is a poor match for "common conceptions of morality".

E) this doesn't connect to our Prem or our Conc.

Hope this helps. Let me know if you have lingering questions.

[jamiejames]

Sure thing. Let's break down the Argument Core to make sure we're on the same page.

prem (technically, a subsidiary conclusion, since this idea has its own supporting premise):
important for litigants to make good impression on jurors

conc:
what litigants said tells us about common conceptions of morality held by citizens

What's the gap between these two ideas?

What the heck does "making a good impression on jurors" have to do with "common conceptions of morality"?

The author must be assuming that the litigators appealed to the jurors' common conceptions of morality in order to try to make a good impression. An answer that establishes this sort of link would definitely forge a connection between the premise and the conclusion.

A) Hmmm. It seems like a partial match for the Core. We're concerned about "impressing jurors" in the Prem. But is "whose personality they preferred" a good match for "common conceptions of morality"? No.

B) Another partial match. Here we discuss the Conc idea about "moral codes", but we introduce some irrelevant distinction between jurors and non-jurors.

C) We have a match! The Prem was talking about litigators wanting "to impress jurors", and the Conc was talking about "common conceptions of morality". And this answer sounds like what we predicted from the outset: the author must have believed that litigators tried to appeal to the jurors' common conceptions of morality in order to impress the jurors.

D) "impressed" matches premise, but "same economic class" is a poor match for "common conceptions of morality".

E) this doesn't connect to our Prem or our Conc.

Hope this helps. Let me know if you have lingering questions.

Great explanation, thank you. I totally misunderstood e part at the end about morality. I think because this is the last question in the section, my mind automatically said "this will be a hard one" but it was actually probably one of the easiest in retrospect. Thank you!

[roflcoptersoisoi]

P: It was important for litigants to make a good impression on jurors
C: Courtroom oratory by litigants is a good source of data as to common conceptions of morality held by citizens of ancient greece

Gap: In order to make a good impression on jurors, litigants catered to the common conceptions of morality held by citizens including jurors in their oral arguments.

(A) This doesn't strengthen the reasoning. It discusses litigants making a good impression on jurors but not as it pertains to the prevailing conceptions of morality in Ancient Greece, "personalities" is not a good match for the latter.
(B) Irrelevant, this doesn't discuss making a good impression on jurors nor does it discuss the prevailing conceptions of morality held by citizens.
(C) Yep.
(D) Like (A), this discusses impressing jurors, but as it pertains to economic class which has no effect on the reasoning,
(E) This doesn't connect the premise and the conclusion, as it discusses two things that have no effect on the reasoning structure.

[JeremyK460]

Breakdown:
Support: Court witnesses were not cross-examined.

Support: Jurors were selected from the citizenry.
Support: Jurors received NO guidance on points of law.

Sub Conclusion: Litigants MUST make a good impression on the jurors.

Conclusion: A litigant’s oratory is a fair reflection of ancient Greece’s popular moral beliefs.

Analysis:
The good impression made by litigants in the oratory must be reflective of the common conceptions of morality.

Answer Choices:
(A) This basically says: You have a good shot at impressing jurors with a likeable personality. Personality is strongly associated with moral code, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be. I’ve definitely not preferred a person’s personality while also still totally agreed with their moral stances (and vice versa).

(B) I feel like this would be good if there were some sort of comparison going on, especially one relevant to jurors and not-jurors. Maybe this is supposed to relate to ‘court-witnesses’ because they fall under the ‘not jurors’ category. Even so, this comparison on the basis of likelihood to subject a litigant’s personal moral code to hypercritical scrutiny feels too far away from relevant. Also, aren’t jurors kind of like non-jurors too because the jury is selected from those who are non-jurors. Weird.

(C) This feels good. It fits the bill for an oratory complementing jury members who represent society’s moral beliefs. Litigants are like politicians. It’s like they were preparing for their oratory, doing some research on google the night before about what society likes.

(D) Historically speaking litigants were typically of a higher socioeconomic class than most of the citizenry, but a jury’s overall impression of a litigant may not depend on whether they share the same economic class.

(E) This would MAYBE make sense if I assume that jurors receiving no guidance on points of law are because they have a fundamental understanding of it, and that litigants felt like they don’t need to try to convince them with evidence and legal banter and nothing else, and only moral standpoints. But that’s too much.

[JeremyK460]

Breakdown:
Support: Court witnesses were not cross-examined.

Support: Jurors were selected from the citizenry.
Support: Jurors received NO guidance on points of law.

Sub Conclusion: Litigants MUST make a good impression on the jurors.

Conclusion: A litigant’s oratory is a fair reflection of ancient Greece’s popular moral beliefs.

Analysis:
The good impression made by litigants in the oratory must be reflective of the common conceptions of morality.

Answer Choices:
(A) This basically says: You have a good shot at impressing jurors with a likeable personality. Personality is strongly associated with moral code, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be. I’ve definitely not preferred a person’s personality while also still totally agreed with their moral stances (and vice versa).

(B) I feel like this would be good if there were some sort of comparison going on, especially one relevant to jurors and not-jurors. Maybe this is supposed to relate to ‘court-witnesses’ because they fall under the ‘not jurors’ category. Even so, this comparison on the basis of likelihood to subject a litigant’s personal moral code to hypercritical scrutiny feels too far away from relevant. Also, aren’t jurors kind of like non-jurors too because the jury is selected from those who are non-jurors. Weird.

(C) This feels good. It fits the bill for an oratory complementing jury members who represent society’s moral beliefs. Litigants are like politicians. It’s like they were preparing for their oratory, doing some research on google the night before about what society likes.

(D) Historically speaking litigants were typically of a higher socioeconomic class than most of the citizenry, but a jury’s overall impression of a litigant may not depend on whether they share the same economic class.

(E) This would MAYBE make sense if I assume that jurors receiving no guidance on points of law are because they have a fundamental understanding of it, and that litigants felt like they don’t need to try to convince them with evidence and legal banter and nothing else, and only moral standpoints. But that’s too much.