Reading inference — how jury roles have changed since colonial America The passage says that in colonial times American juries were encouraged to ask questions and expected to investigate facts themselves. Today, if jurors conducted such an investigation, the case would be thrown out. Which statement is best supported by the paragraph?

Introduction / Context:
This question assesses your ability to extract the safest, text-supported inference. The passage contrasts historical and modern expectations of jurors: active investigation then versus prohibition now. The cleanest conclusion is that the jury system has changed over time.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Colonial-era juries asked questions and investigated facts.
• Modern jurors who independently investigate would cause a case to be thrown out.
• No claims are made about interest levels, efficiency, or importance.

Concept / Approach:
Prefer general, conservative inferences tied directly to the stated contrast. Avoid speculative comparisons (importance, interest, efficiency) lacking textual support.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• A: “Less important” is not addressed.
• B: “Less interested” is not addressed.
• C: “More efficient” is not supported.
• D: The passage does not claim relative information levels.

Common Pitfalls:
Reading beyond the text to infer attitudes or values (importance, efficiency). The question asks what is best supported, not what might be true.

Final Answer:
the jury system in America has changed since colonial times.