Passage Summary: Some people think it's good for juries to ignore laws they find unfair. The author disagrees, arguing that jurors aren't objective enough to handle that power without making a mess of things.

Conclusion: The doctrine of jury nullification is problematic because it relies on flawed human judgment.

Reasoning: While proponents claim nullification prevents injustice, the author argues that jurors lack the necessary objectivity and frequently make mistakes when judging fairness.

Analysis: This Method of Reasoning question focuses on how the author attacks the proponents' position. The author doesn't necessarily disagree with the *goal* of preventing injustice; instead, the author points out a practical flaw in the *mechanism* (the jurors' lack of objectivity). It is a classic 'good in theory, bad in practice' rebuttal. Look for an answer that describes the strategy of highlighting an adverse consequence or a failure of a necessary condition—in this case, the assumption that jurors can be objective.