Q27

[bermudask8er7]

Can you explain why D is correct? Thanks.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Tough one. But answer choice (D) can be inferred from the first few lines of the final paragraph.

We know that the farther remove from the event, the greater the chance that newly suggested information will blend with memories. It that's true then one factor that would tend to lead to a witness offering inaccurate testimony (memory loss over time) would be increased with increased susceptibility to suggested information.

(A) is contradicted by the information. To say that there is no correlation flies against what the passage is trying to illustrate.
(B) is not determinable. We know that both can cause serious changes in a witness' testimony.
(C) is contradicted by the passage. This passage is all about the memory processes.
(E) is contradicted by the passage. The data supports the exclusion of leading questions rather than challenges their exclusion.

The correct answer may be tough to find in the passage. But the incorrect answers should be fairly easy to eliminate. This is one where the wrong answers are so wrong it's easier to knock them off and go work on something else!

Does that clear this up? Long story short, answer choice (D) can be inferred from the first part of the final paragraph.

[xinglipku]

Tough one. But answer choice (D) can be inferred from the first few lines of the final paragraph.

We know that the farther remove from the event, the greater the chance that newly suggested information will blend with memories. It that's true then one factor that would tend to lead to a witness offering inaccurate testimony (memory loss over time) would be increased with increased susceptibility to suggested information.

(A) is contradicted by the information. To say that there is no correlation flies against what the passage is trying to illustrate.
(B) is not determinable. We know that both can cause serious changes in a witness' testimony.
(C) is contradicted by the passage. This passage is all about the memory processes.
(E) is contradicted by the passage. The data supports the exclusion of leading questions rather than challenges their exclusion.

The correct answer may be tough to find in the passage. But the incorrect answers should be fairly easy to eliminate. This is one where the wrong answers are so wrong it's easier to knock them off and go work on something else!

Does that clear this up? Long story short, answer choice (D) can be inferred from the first part of the final paragraph.

Does "certain other factors" here refer to "leading questions"? Or could be something else?

[zainrizvi]

For (E) does it not "challenge the traditional grounds" by suggesting that they need to be expanded and encompass more?

[hychu3]

The phrase "certain other factors" refer to factors other than leading questions.

To clarify Matt's explanation, notice that the first two sentences of the final paragraph says that, the farther away we are from an event, the more likely we are to be fooled by newly "introduced" information about the event. One way this 'introduction' happens is through leading questions.

But there are numerous other ways new information about an event can be introduced (rumors, TV, newspapers, etc.), and thus it can be "reasonably inferred" that the farther away we are from an event (hence more "susceptible" to leading questions), the more likely we are to be fooled by certain other ways of introducing new information.

I think this is a tough question, not least because the correct answer choice does take a bit of logical gap that you'd not expect in LR questions and most other RC questions.

For (E), we have to be a little more careful. The study mentioned in the second paragraph confirms (not calls into question) the traditional grounds for excluding leading questions in the courtroom, which is explicitly stated in the first sentence of the passage.

The traditional reason for excluding leading questions is that, basically, they are dangerous. The study confirms that they are indeed dangerous.

Notice that nobody argues here that this measure is sufficient. Thus, that there is additional danger of corrupting witness memory outside the courtroom does not affect this traditional reason in any way.

[shiqi0628]

this is about the most time-consuming inference question ive ever had. .so let me go throught the answer choices again:
A firstly emotionally affected is unsupported in the passage, or if we can assume being emotionally affected relate to giving things adequete attention, then the choice is just the opposite.
B. FALSE comparison, the passage never compare the likelihood of causing inaccurate testimony btw leading question asked in courtroom interrogation and outside courtroom. we can only infer that judges' exclusion of leading questions from courtroom by no means eliminate the remote effects of EAlier leading questions.
C.opposite. the subtly introduced information can reinforced the corresponding accurately remembered information is exactly just the reason why the leading question can taint the accuracy of testimony
D.by simplifying the mouthy wordings: The risk of false testimony due to OTHER FACTORS increases as the susceptibility to giving false testimony due to LEADING QUESTIONS increases.
risk caused by other certain factors increases as the risk caused by leading questions increased. humm, so we know from the last paragraph that further removed from the event, the more vague of our recollection, the more likely the subly suggested information can be blend in. here, i think certain other factor refer to Vague recollection, time passage, tangential factors. and tangential factors are more likely to be subsequently introduced into memories thus more likely to form the leading question. so we can see the correlation here btw the risk incurred by other factors and risk incurred byleading questions.
E.the traditioanl grounds on which leading quesitions can be excluded from courtroom interrogation have been called into question. just the opposite.

really this inference question can only work form false to right by POE, and as the last question of the whole prep, i think its most easily fallable.
and i think this whole passage takes more time than the average normal legal passage, it contains so many details to remember and when im doing it under timing, i did the 8 questione passage first, and the first passage at last, which is quiet unwise, i lost points on the part i shouldve easily get and did not gain extra points bcuz the bewildering inference detail creep. this passage took me 14mins!

[christine.defenbaugh]

humm, so we know from the last paragraph that further removed from the event, the more vague of our recollection, the more likely the subly suggested information can be blend in. here, i think certain other factor refer to Vague recollection, time passage, tangential factors.

I think you have this spot on here shiqi0628! That first sentence aligns or correlates three things:

1) the farther removed we are from the event
2) the greater the chance of a vague/incomplete recollection and
3) the greater the likelihood of newly suggested information blending with original memories.

Leading questions and any other potential sources of new information are all covered in #3. What is correlated to that is the vagueness or incompleteness of the recollection itself, which is itself correlated with how removed we are from the event! Our testimony is more inaccurate the further we are from an event simply because the memory degrades as time passes.

That is a wholly separate danger from the danger of newly introduced information, but we become more susceptible to both as time passes. The "other factor" here is really just time.

I actually disagree that the only way to get through this question is process of elimination! Once you zero in on the first sentence of the final paragraph, and parse it correctly, (D) is completely and directly supportable. However, working from wrong to right is an extremely efficient way of narrowing the scope of our analysis quickly, as always!

For (E), we have to be a little more careful. The study mentioned in the second paragraph confirms (not calls into question) the traditional grounds for excluding leading questions in the courtroom, which is explicitly stated in the first sentence of the passage.

The traditional reason for excluding leading questions is that, basically, they are dangerous. The study confirms that they are indeed dangerous.

Notice that nobody argues here that this measure is sufficient. Thus, that there is additional danger of corrupting witness memory outside the courtroom does not affect this traditional reason in any way.

This is some really great analysis of why (E) is wrong, hychu3, and gets to heart of zainrizvi's earlier question. The traditional exclusion is based on the fact that leading questions are dangerous, or specifically, the fact that they can produce unreliable testimony. (line 3, 6). Calling the exclusion grounds into question would mean suggesting they do not produce unreliable testimony. Nothing in the recent studies suggests that! The fact that other things might also produce unreliable testimony is a separate matter.

Thank you both for contributing such great analysis! Keep up the good work!

[christine.defenbaugh]

humm, so we know from the last paragraph that further removed from the event, the more vague of our recollection, the more likely the subly suggested information can be blend in. here, i think certain other factor refer to Vague recollection, time passage, tangential factors.

I think you have this spot on here shiqi0628! That first sentence aligns or correlates three things:

1) the farther removed we are from the event
2) the greater the chance of a vague/incomplete recollection and
3) the greater the likelihood of newly suggested information blending with original memories.

Leading questions and any other potential sources of new information are all covered in #3. What is correlated to that is the vagueness or incompleteness of the recollection itself, which is itself correlated with how removed we are from the event! Our testimony is more inaccurate the further we are from an event simply because the memory degrades as time passes.

That is a wholly separate danger from the danger of newly introduced information, but we become more susceptible to both as time passes. The "other factor" here is really just time.

I actually disagree that the only way to get through this question is process of elimination! Once you zero in on the first sentence of the final paragraph, and parse it correctly, (D) is completely and directly supportable. However, working from wrong to right is an extremely efficient way of narrowing the scope of our analysis quickly, as always!

For (E), we have to be a little more careful. The study mentioned in the second paragraph confirms (not calls into question) the traditional grounds for excluding leading questions in the courtroom, which is explicitly stated in the first sentence of the passage.

The traditional reason for excluding leading questions is that, basically, they are dangerous. The study confirms that they are indeed dangerous.

Notice that nobody argues here that this measure is sufficient. Thus, that there is additional danger of corrupting witness memory outside the courtroom does not affect this traditional reason in any way.

This is some really great analysis of why (E) is wrong, hychu3, and gets to heart of zainrizvi's earlier question. The traditional exclusion is based on the fact that leading questions are dangerous, or specifically, the fact that they can produce unreliable testimony. (line 3, 6). Calling the exclusion grounds into question would mean suggesting they do not produce unreliable testimony. Nothing in the recent studies suggests that! The fact that other things might also produce unreliable testimony is a separate matter.

Thank you both for contributing such great analysis! Keep up the good work!

[uhinberg]

Isn't there only one other factor, i.e., time elapsing? So, how can we reasonably infer anything about "certain factors" in the plural?

[ohthatpatrick]

First and foremost, is there a MORE supportable answer choice?

(You're going to have make peace, OFTEN, on modern RC sections with picking an answer that's MORE supported than the others, though not necessarily ADEQUATELY supported)

But I also think LSAT might be using "certain other factors" in a vague, "some clowns are scary" way to mean "at least one".

You can also think of "the farther removed you are from an event" potentially being an umbrella phrase for many different factors --- how long ago it was, how far away you were when you eyewitnessed something, how well you do / don't know the people involved in what you eyewitnessed.