#20 - People who have specialized knowledge about

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Weaken. The correct answer choice is (B)

The first sentence is a premise, and the second sentence is the conclusion of this argument. To
attack this conclusion, look for an answer choice that shows that the exclusion of knowledgeable
individuals from scientific or technical issue trials is a fair way of proceeding in these trials.
Answer choice (A): This is an Opposite answer that strengthens the conclusion. If specialized
knowledge of these issues makes it more likely that the juror can comprehend the testimony being
given, then these individuals should not be excluded from juries, and their exclusion makes trial by
jury an unfair means of resolving a dispute.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer. If the specialized knowledge is likely to produce a
prejudice in a juror, then by all means they should be excluded from the jury. Thus, instead of trial by
jury being an unfair means, it is made more fair by the exclusion of these individuals. The answer is a
tricky one because most people initially think the answer agrees with the argument. It agrees with the
principle of the premise, but not with the conclusion drawn from that premise.

Answer choice (C): This answer simply notes that arbitrators are not a fair means of settling
scientific or technical issue debates. This has no impact on the fairness of jury trials involving these
same issues.

Answer choice (D): This answer is about the experts testifying at scientific or technical issue trials.
This information does not attack the claim that jury trials are unfair because of the exclusion of
jurors with knowledge of these issues.

Answer choice (E): This answer can be eliminated by reasoning similar to that used to eliminate
answer choice (D).

[sim.LSAT]

Is this a question that can be diagrammed?
If so, how exactly would we diagram this question? I think it would help me understand how to determine what aspect of the question I should be trying to weaken.

[Jeremy Press]

Hi sim,

Short answer, I don't think it's necessary or helpful to diagram in this question.

I normally limit my diagramming to questions with a strong conditional reasoning element, cause/effect relationships (particularly a cause/effect relationship stated in a conclusion), or formal logic relationships (statements utilizing "all," "most," "some," or "none").

There are edge cases from time to time. The first sentence (the premise) of the stimulus is technically a conditional statement (utilizing the sufficient condition indicator "People who"). But the conclusion isn't being derived using conditional reasoning (at least not in any obvious way), so diagramming probably won't help very much here.

Instead, focus on the conclusion, that "trial by jury is not a fair means of settling disputes involving such issues." If I want to weaken that conclusion, then I want to show trial by jury IS a fair means of settling disputes involving the issues stated in the first sentence. In other words, I want to show it's fair to systematically exclude from juries "[p]eople who have specialized knowledge about a scientific or technical issue." Answer choice B shows why it might be fair to do that (because such people are prejudiced in favor of one of the parties in the trial before they ever hear the evidence in the case).

I hope this helps!

Jeremy

[sim.LSAT]

Thank you for the quick reply! I will take this into mind

[valegria]

Can you please rephrase Answer Choice A & B.
I chose A, I read it understanding it stating that the more complicated the issue the less likely that juror will be able to comprehend the testimony. Is that wrong?

[Luke Haqq]

Hi valegria!

Yes, that sounds like a reasonable rephrasing of answer choice (A).

For a rephrase of (B), that could be something like: the more a juror knows about a scientific/technical issue in a trial, the more likely that will add unfairness to the trial (because the juror would be prejudiced toward one of the parties).

This weakens the argument. The conclusion is that trial by jury isn't fair when scientific/technical matters are at issue because experts with knowledge about such matters are systematically excluded from juries. Answer choice (B) weakens this by indicating that it would actually impart unfairness by including such experts, because, according to that answer choice, their knowledge causes them to be prejudiced toward one of the parties in the case.