When a lawyer asks jurors if they would weigh a police officer's testimony more than another's, what type of question are they using?

When a lawyer asks jurors if they would weigh a police officer's testimony more than another's, what type of question are they using?

• A. Begging the Question
• B. Inconsequent Argument
• C. Leading Question
• D. Victory by Definition

Answer: (C)

The question posed by the lawyer is classified as a leading question because it suggests a specific answer by implying that jurors should favor the police officer's testimony over others. A leading question is designed to guide a respondent toward a desired response and can influence their thinking or decision-making process. In this case, the phrasing indicates an assumption that the police officer's testimony has inherently more value, which can sway jurors’ opinions before they have fully considered all evidence presented in the case. This approach can shape the perspectives of jurors and importantly reflects one of the strategies lawyers use to advocate for their positions during a trial. The context around the other types of questions further illuminates why this is a leading question. For instance, "begging the question" involves a circular argument where the conclusion is assumed in the premises, rather than focusing on the persuasion of jurors. "Inconsequent argument" refers to reasoning that is irrelevant to the topic at hand, and "victory by definition" relies on manipulating definitions to win an argument without considering the substantive content. None of these categories apply to the tactical nature of the lawyer's inquiry about jurors' perceptions of police testimony.

The question posed by the lawyer is classified as a leading question because it suggests a specific answer by implying that jurors should favor the police officer's testimony over others. A leading question is designed to guide a respondent toward a desired response and can influence their thinking or decision-making process. In this case, the phrasing indicates an assumption that the police officer's testimony has inherently more value, which can sway jurors’ opinions before they have fully considered all evidence presented in the case. This approach can shape the perspectives of jurors and importantly reflects one of the strategies lawyers use to advocate for their positions during a trial.

The context around the other types of questions further illuminates why this is a leading question. For instance, "begging the question" involves a circular argument where the conclusion is assumed in the premises, rather than focusing on the persuasion of jurors. "Inconsequent argument" refers to reasoning that is irrelevant to the topic at hand, and "victory by definition" relies on manipulating definitions to win an argument without considering the substantive content. None of these categories apply to the tactical nature of the lawyer's inquiry about jurors' perceptions of police testimony.