一道逻辑题求助

刻与刻UID: 3267296

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.

额，我这题没有看懂，真心不知道什么意思

linacreUID: 2468672

D？

846136085UID: 2987171

D

linacreUID: 2468672

我试着解答下：
原文的逻辑是：因为任何人未经证实的声称都是值得怀疑的（because it is usually prudent to be highly skeptical of unsubstantiated claims made by any one person一句），所以哪怕被告自己完全承认了自己有罪（当然，是uncorroborated的full confession），也不能就因此判断其有罪。
D选项说：一个被告高度易受影响（highly suggestible）容易在回忆时出现不确定性从而导致接受不利他们的指控。即，被告哪怕承认了自己有罪，也不一定真有罪，这就支持了论证。

刻与刻UID: 3267296

4# linacre
非常感谢~
但我还有个问题不懂，这句话应该怎样理解：But then, to be consistent, juries should end an all-too-common practice: convicting defendants on the basis of an uncorroborated full confession.
特别是前半句，不懂啊

alteraUID: 2724954

嗯?意思就是juries应该结束这种让犯人自招的通常的审判方式。