Discussion :: Analyzing Arguements
-
In the 1966 Supreme Court decision Miranda v. Arizona, the court held that before the police can obtain statements from a person subjected to an interrogation, the person must be given a Miranda warning. This warning means that a person must be told that he or she has the right to remain silent during the police interrogation. Violation of this right means that any statement that the person makes is not admissible in a court hearing.
This paragraph best supports the statement that
|
A.
police who do not warn persons of their Miranda rights are guilty of a crime.
|
|
B.
a Miranda warning must be given before a police interrogation can begin.
|
|
C.
the police may no longer interrogate persons suspected of a crime unless a lawyer is present.
|
|
D.
the 1966 Supreme Court decision in Miranda should be reversed
|
|
E.
persons who are interrogated by police should always remain silent until their lawyer comes
|
Whatsapp
Facebook
Answer : Option B
Explanation :
This answer is clearly supported in the second sentence. Nothing in the paragraph suggests that it is a crime not to give a Miranda warning, so choice a is incorrect. Choice c is also wrong because police may interrogate as long as a warning is given. There is no support given for either choice d or e.
Be The First To Comment