ACT Reading

SAT Question of the Day

The SAT question of the day is an Improving Sentences Question that has already been addressed on this blog: click here to see an explanation.

ACT Reading Question of the Day

The ACT often gives you a lot more than you need to know.  Before reading the following passage, look down at the question that follows it.

SOCIAL SCIENCE: This passage is adapted from Leonard W. Levy's Origins of the Fifth Amendment: The Right Against Self Incrimination. (©1968 by Clio Enterprises Inc.).

	Community courts and community justice pre- vailed in England at the time of the Norman Conquest  [1066]. The legal system was ritualistic, dependent  upon oaths at most stages of litigation, and permeated
5	by both religious and superstitious notions. The pro- ceedings were oral, very personal, and highly con- frontative. Juries were unknown. One party publicly  "appealed," or accused, the other before the community  meeting at which the presence of both was obligatory.
10	To be absent meant risking fines and outlawry. After  the preliminary statements of the parties, the court ren- dered judgment, not on the merits of the issue nor the  question of guilt or innocence, but on the manner by  which it should be resolved. Judgment in other words
15	preceded trial because it was a decision on what form  the trial should take. It might be by compurgation, by  ordeal, or, after the Norman Conquest, by battle.  Excepting trial by battle, only one party was tried or,  more accurately, was put to his "proof." Proof being
20	regarded as an advantage, it was usually awarded to the accused party; in effect he had the privilege of proving  his own case.     Trial by compurgation consisted of a sworn state- ment to the truth of one's claim or denial, supported by
25	the oaths of a certain number of fellow swearers.  Presumably they, no more than the claimant, would  endanger their immortal souls by the sacrilege of false  swearing. Originally the oath-helpers swore from their  own knowledge to the truth of the party's claim. Later
30	they became little more than character witnesses,  swearing only to their belief that his oath was trust- worthy. If he rounded up the requisite number of com- purgators and the cumbrous swearing in very exact  form proceeded without a mistake, he won his case. A
35	mistake "burst" the oath, proving guilt.     Ordeals were usually reserved for more serious  crimes, for persons of bad reputation, for peasants, or  for those caught with stolen goods. As an invocation of  immediate divine judgment, ordeals were consecrated
40	by the Church and shrouded with solemn religious mys- tery. The accused underwent a physical trial in which  he called upon God to witness his innocence by putting  a miraculous sign upon his body. Cold water, boiling  water, and hot iron were the principal ordeals, all of
45	which the clergy administered. In the ordeal of cold  water, the accused was trussed up and cast into a pool  to see whether he would sink or float. On the theory  that water which had been sanctified by a priest would  receive an innocent person but reject the guilty, inno-
50	cence was proved by sinking—and hopefully a quick  retrieval—guilt by floating. In the other ordeals, one  had to plunge his hand into a cauldron of boiling water  or carry a red hot piece of iron for a certain distance, in  the hope that three days later, when the bandages were
55	removed, the priest would find a "clean" wound, one  that was healing free of infection. How deeply one  plunged his arm into the water, how heavy the iron or  great the distance it was carried, depended mainly on  the gravity of the charge.
60	The Normans brought to England still another  ordeal, trial by battle, paradigm of the adversary  system, which gave to the legal concept of "defense" or  "defendant" a physical meaning. Trial by battle was a  savage yet sacred method of proof which was also
65	thought to involve divine intercession on behalf of the  righteous. Rather than let a wrongdoer triumph, God  would presumably strengthen the arms of the party who  had sworn truly to the justice of his cause. Right, not  might, would therefore conquer. Trial by battle was
70	originally available for the settlement of all disputes  but eventually was restricted to cases of serious crime.     Whether one proved his case by compurgation,  ordeal, or battle, the method was accusatory in char- acter. There was always a definite and known accuser,
75	some private person who brought formal suit and  openly confronted his antagonist. There was never any  secrecy in the proceedings, which were the same for  criminal as for civil litigation. The judges, who had no  role whatever in the making of the verdict, decided only
80	which party should be put to proof and what its form  should be; thereafter the judges merely enforced an  observance of the rules. The oaths that saturated the  proceedings called upon God to witness to the truth of  the respective claims of the parties, or the justice of
85	their cause, or the reliability of their word. No one gave  testimonial evidence nor was anyone questioned to test  his veracity.

According to the passage, an oath was declared "burst" during compurgation if the:

Your job it to find the word “burst.”  Quickly look through the passage.  Do you see it in line 35?  You can answer the question just by reading the sentence that contains the word “burst.”  What is responsible for “bursting” the oath?  A mistake!  Look down at your answer choices.

F. swearer made an error in the exact form of the required ritual.
G. swearer could not round up the required number of oath-helpers.
H. swearer preferred trial by ordeal, or by battle.
J. judges decided that the oath was false or unnecessary.

(F) What is another word for mistake?  Error!  This answer choice matches your prediction.  (G)  This answer may distract you if you read the entire paragraph including “burst.”  If you read the sentence carefully, you will see that even if a swearer has a lot of oath-helpers, he has to use the exact form of the required ritual without any mistake.  The mistake is what “burst” the oath.  (H)  The trial by ordeal and the trial by battle are not introduced until after the word “burst” appears.  In both of these trials, no oath is necessary because the outcome of the trial is what determines a person’s innocence or guilt, not words.  (J) Notice that lines 78-82 tells you that judges do not decide a verdict, they just decide who should be put to proof.  Judges did not determine what was true or false, they just made sure that each side followed the legal rules.

The correct answer is (F).

For the ACT Question of the Day, visit http://www.act.org/qotd/.

To get help preparing for the SAT, PSAT, or ACT Exam, visit www.myknowsys.com!