- Posts: 91
- Joined: Jul 10, 2024
- Thu Apr 03, 2025 11:32 pm
#112509
Hello,
I actually had the same question as Toad from earlier in the thread, but realized that what is probably actually happening is that “how reliable these tests are” do refer to the same thing in the second and third sentences of the stimulus. In that case, it seems to me that we would have to assume that if experts agree tests are highly reliable (regardless of whether they agree on the exact amount of reliability), it would not be unreasonable for the courts to allow evidence based on DNA tests. Since this isn’t explicitly stated, it would fall under the category of an assumption we can make due to common sense. I’d appreciate your thoughts on whether my reasoning here is correct!
I actually had the same question as Toad from earlier in the thread, but realized that what is probably actually happening is that “how reliable these tests are” do refer to the same thing in the second and third sentences of the stimulus. In that case, it seems to me that we would have to assume that if experts agree tests are highly reliable (regardless of whether they agree on the exact amount of reliability), it would not be unreasonable for the courts to allow evidence based on DNA tests. Since this isn’t explicitly stated, it would fall under the category of an assumption we can make due to common sense. I’d appreciate your thoughts on whether my reasoning here is correct!