#16 - The miscarriage of justice in the Barker case was due

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Strengthen. The correct answer choice is (A).

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice.

Answer choice (B):

Answer choice (C):

Answer choice (D):

Answer choice (E):

This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!

[Jay]

Dear Powerscore

I don't understand why (A) is correct. How does (A) strengthen the main conclusion?
The main conclusion, I think, is the last sentence. "Hence it is not forensic evidence in general that should be condemned for this injustice."

Could you also explain why other options are incorrect? Thank you!!

[Jeremy Press]

Hi Jay,

You've correctly identified the conclusion, so nicely done there! It's a (negative) causal conclusion, that forensic science did NOT cause the injustice in the Barker case.

Answer choice A strengthens that conclusion because it gives some evidence that the individual scientists in the Barker case were not representative of forensic scientists in general, and therefore that we cannot blame forensic science in a general sense for what happened in the Barker case. After all, most forensic scientists wouldn't have endorsed what those scientists did, so the injustice in the Barker case is less likely to have stemmed from a problem with forensic science in general, and more likely to have happened because of a problem with the personal ethics of those individual scientists in the Barker case (unrelated to forensic science).

Answer choice B doesn't shed any light on the specific cause of injustice in the other cases mentioned, so it cannot shed any light on the cause of the injustice in the Barker case.

Answer choice C cannot help us with the conclusion, because we cannot know how, or even if, most prosecutors' beliefs would affect forensic scientists' beliefs, particularly in this one single Barker case.

Answer choice D is irrelevant. We want to know about the cause of the type of injustice that occurred in the Barker case, not about whether other types of injustices occur in other cases.

Answer choice E is also irrelevant. The conclusion is about what caused the injustice in the Barker case, not about whether or not there was actually an injustice that occurred, let alone about whether certain scientists do or do not believe such an injustice occurred.

Let us know if this clears up your questions on this one!

Jeremy

[Jay]

Thank you for your answer. But I am still a bit confused. My question may sound confusing, but I will do my best to explain.

You said

because (A) gives some evidence that some forensic scientists in the case is not representative of forensic "SCIENTISTS" in general, we cannot blame forensic "SCIENCE" in general. Are those two words(forensic scientists, and forensic science) interchangeable?

I get that because only SOME scientists in the case provided evidence impartially, all scientists shouldn't be blamed.

But what does that have to do with "evidence in general"?
The main conclusion is forensic science didn't cause the injustice.

then don't we have to show that forensic science is unbiased? not that "scientists in general" are impartial?

Thank you!

[Jeremy Press]

Hi Jay,

Good question! The words are not interchangeable. But remember this is a strengthen, not a justify, question. If I were wanting to prove the conclusion, then I’d need more than answer choice A states. I’d need to know about forensic science even more broadly than answer choice A relates to it. But the views of most scientists do have at least something to do with the discipline of forensic science generally. So answer choice A is relevant and does boost the conclusion somewhat. Certainly more than any of the other choices, which don’t do anything for our conclusion! And that’s all we need on a strengthen. If one answer helps a little, and the other answers don’t help at all, that’s our answer!

Thanks again for a great question!

Jeremy

[Jay]

Wow. Thank you for the great answer!