Juries in criminal trials do not base verdicts on uncor-
roborated testimony given by any one witness. Rightly
so, because it is usually prudent to be highly skeptical
of unsubstantiated claims made by any one person.
But then, to be consistent, juries should end an all-
too-common practice: convicting defendants on the
basis of an uncorroborated full confession.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the
argument above?
(A) Juries often acquit in cases in which a defendant
retracts a full confession made before trial.
(B) The process of jury selection is designed to screen
out people who have a firm opinion about the
defendant's guilt in advance of the trial.
(C) Defendants sometimes make full confessions when
they did in fact do what they are accused of
doing and have come to believe that the prose-
cutor has compelling proof of this.
(D) Highly suggestible people who are accused of
wrongdoing sometimes become so unsure of
their own recollection of the past that they can
come to accept the accusations made against
them.
(E) Many people believe that juries should not con-
vict defendants who have not made a full con-
fession.
but then后面是conclusion作者: SoohooBai 时间: 2013-8-5 17:24:00
楼主,这个逻辑题很典型的对比啊。先说了法官不能根据一个不靠谱的证词就定罪,但是提出了另一个问题就是法官却会根据一个不靠谱的自首来定罪,这是表里前后不一的,就是所谓的 inconsistent。所以后面才有 to be consistent,那么最能支持这个逻辑的就是,自首有的时候会误判,就和不靠谱的证词会导致误判一样。所以,你看C,C没有误判把。。。那么答案就是D。作者: SoohooBai 时间: 2013-8-5 17:25:53