Choice (A) is not self-contradictory. In fact, it's a fairly sound argument. This eliminates (A). Choice (B), on the other hand, is not a sound argument. The police, though understaffed, may realize the seriousness of the situation and rearrange their priorities. Nevertheless, (B) does not contain a contradiction. This eliminates (B). As to choice (C), although the argument is questionable, it, like (B), does not contain a contradiction. This eliminates (C). Choice (D), however, does contain a contradiction. It starts by stating that both the powerful and the poor had to serve in Vietnam, but it ends by stating that some powerful people--namely, Stevens--did not have to serve. This is a contradiction, so (D) is probably the answer. Finally, choice (E), like the original argument, is invalid, but it does not contain a contradiction. This eliminates (E). The answer is (D).
There are two major systems of criminal procedure in the modern world--the adversarial and the inquisitorial. Both systems were historically preceded by the system of private vengeance in which the victim of a crime fashioned his own remedy and administered it privately. The modern adversarial system is only one historical step removed from the private vengeance system and still retains some of its characteristic features. Thus, for example, even though the right to initiate legal action against a criminal has now been extended to all members of society and even though the police department has taken over the pretrial investigative functions on behalf of the prosecution, the adversarial system still leaves the defendant to conduct his own pretrial investigation. The trial is still viewed as a duel between two adversaries, refereed by a judge who, at the beginning of the trial has no knowledge of the investigative background of the case. In the final analysis the adversarial system of criminal procedure symbolizes and regularizes the punitive combat.
By contrast, the inquisitorial system begins historically where the adversarial system stopped its development. It is two historical steps removed from the system of private vengeance. Therefore, from the standpoint of legal anthropology, it is historically superior to the adversarial system. Under the inquisitorial system the public investigator has the duty to investigate not just on behalf of the prosecutor but also on behalf of the defendant.
Because of the inquisitorial system's thoroughness in conducting its pretrial investigation, it can be concluded that a defendant who is innocent would prefer to be tried under the inquisitorial system, whereas a defendant who is guilty would prefer to be tried under the adversarial system.
The primary purpose of the passage is to:
explain why the inquisitorial system is the best system of criminal justice.
explain how both the adversarial and the inquisitorial systems of criminal justice evolved from the system of private vengeance. 2011-09-02 17:12:00 来源：网络资源 双击单词自动翻译
作文地带导读：LSAT考试分为三种主题型：分析推理（游戏），逻辑推理（议论），阅读理解。George is taller than Hank. Carl is taller than David. Adam is taller than Frank. David is……
