#13 - Author's Perspective

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation
(See the complete passage discussion here: lsat/viewtopic.php?t=14445)

The correct answer choice is (C)

This question requires us to describe the author’s attitude toward the testimony of medical experts
in personal injury cases. Since expert testimony was primarily discussed in the fourth paragraph of
the passage, pay particular attention to the language used in that paragraph to quickly validate your
response.

Answer choice (A): This is a classic half-right, half-wrong answer, since the author is indeed
skeptical about the effectiveness of expert testimony in the absence of illustrations designed to
facilitate its comprehension. However, even though the author clearly appreciates the difficulty
involved in understanding medical data (lines 56-58), there is no evidence that she appreciates the
difficulty of trying to explain it.

Answer choice (B): Even if medical professionals may be unable to explain complex data in
the clearest of terms, it would be a stretch to suggest that the author harbors “disdain” for their
communications skills. Likewise, there is no evidence that the author admires their technical
knowledge.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. The author does not dispute the accuracy
of the testimony by medical experts, but clearly has reservations regarding their ability to verbally
communicate complex medical data to people who are not specially trained in the field (lines 56-59).

Answer choice (D): This answer choice is quite attractive, since the author does exhibit apprehension
concerning the tendency of judges and jurors to be overwhelmed by technical details. However, there
is no evidence that the medical professionals try to overwhelm their audience with technical details.
Read carefully—this nuance is crucial and sufficient to make answer choice (D) incorrect.

Answer choice (E): Although there is no reason to doubt the author’s respect for expert witnesses,
the claim that she is intolerant of technical terminology is an exaggeration. The author is simply
aware of its limitations.

[German.Steel]

Whoo boy...I have major issues with this one. I maintain that (A) is superior to (C). I further propose that this question is a key reason why PrepTest 62 had a -2 threshold for a 180, as opposed to the vast majority of exams around that timeframe, where a -1 threshold for a 180 was much more typical.

(A): The support for the first half, "appreciation for the difficulty involved in explaining...", comes from the line: "...are especially valuable in that they provide visual representations of DATA WHOSE VERBAL DESCRIPTION WOULD BE VERY COMPLEX." And to add to the support, the same paragraph tells us that "those who are not specially trained in the field find it difficult to translate mentally into visual imagery," again bolstering the idea that the author appreciates the difficulty involved in explaining data which is already "very complex" to "verbally describe." And the second half, "skepticism concerning the effectiveness of such testimony," is supported throughout the final paragraph (as the original poster noted).

(C): The best we can do to support "acceptance of the accuracy of such testimony" is that the author never directly disputes the accuracy; we basically just have to assume that because the author didn't explicitly dispute the accuracy, that the author "accepts the accuracy." This feels like much shakier ground than the more explicit support we got for both parts of (A). The latter part of (C) is fine, and very similar to the latter half of (A).

Agree/disagree? What am I missing, if anything?

[Jeff Wren]

Hi German.Steel,

I agree that this question is tricky!

I think the key and critical difference between Answers A and C is that Answer C specifies "with an awareness of the limitations of a presentation that is entirely verbal," with the emphasis that the issue is with verbal only presentations.

Answer A, on the other hand, by not distinguishing verbal only presentations, would also include the expert testimony that incorporates the medical illustrations. In other words, the "skepticism concerning the effectiveness of such testimony" in Answer A is not exactly correct because the author would only be skeptical of the effectiveness of the testimony without the illustrations, but would be completely fine with the expert testimony that uses the illustrations.

This is tricky because it is easy to think of the expert testimony as just the expert's words (and the illustrations as completely separate), but the expert testimony that uses the illustrations presumably is effective and that difference is the key to Answer C.