Question

Juries in criminal trials do not base verdicts on uncorroborated 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 prosecutor 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 convict defendants who have not made a full confession.

Hint:

To strengthen an argument based on an analogy (comparing A to B), provide information that shows A and B are similar in a relevant way. Here, the argument compares a confession to testimony. The best strengthener shows that confessions, like testimony, can be unreliable.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
This is a strengthen question. The argument makes an analogy: an uncorroborated confession is like uncorroborated testimony from a single witness. Since we don't trust the latter, we shouldn't trust the former. The core idea is that a confession from a single person (the defendant) is an "unsubstantiated claim" and therefore potentially unreliable. To strengthen this, we need to provide a reason why a confession might indeed be unreliable.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
The argument's logic is:

Principle: We shouldn't trust uncorroborated claims from a single person.
Application: Uncorroborated testimony from a witness is rightly not trusted.
Conclusion: Therefore, an uncorroborated confession from a defendant should also not be trusted.
To strengthen this, we need to show that the analogy is strong, i.e., that a confession can be just as unreliable as a witness's testimony. Let's analyze the options:

(A) This might slightly weaken the argument by showing that juries are already skeptical of some confessions (those that are retracted). It doesn't strengthen the core idea that all uncorroborated confessions are inherently unreliable.
(B) This is about jury selection and is irrelevant to the reliability of confessions.
(C) This weakens the argument. It gives a reason why a confession might be true and reliable, which is the opposite of what the argument is trying to prove.
(D) This provides a strong reason why a person might give a false confession. If people can be psychologically pressured into accepting accusations they don't remember committing, then their confession is an unreliable, "unsubstantiated claim." This directly supports the argument's central point that confessions, like single-witness testimony, can be untrustworthy.
(E) This statement is about public opinion, which doesn't provide a logical reason to strengthen the argument's claim about consistency and prudence.
Step 3: Final Answer:
Option (D) strengthens the argument by providing evidence that a confession can be unreliable, thereby supporting the analogy between an uncorroborated confession and uncorroborated testimony.