#21- In an experiment, volunteers witnessed a simulated

[stsai]

Q21 "In an experiment, volunteers witnessed..."
I guessed the right answer out of luck, yet I still cannot see through the logic of this question. Can someone please explain this to me?

Thanks in advance!

[Dave Killoran]

On to #21 (or back to it, I guess ).

The stimulus presents an interesting paradox: the witnesses who during the first questioning (the one attempting to yield inaccuracies) gave testimony with fewer inaccuracies than most other witnesses then gave testimony with more inaccuracies than most other witnesses after the second questioning (the one attempting to yield more accurate testimony). What could cause that to occur?

The first key is to realize that the scenario described in the stimulus allows for several results. The result that most test takers assume is occurring is that these witnesses first gave really accurate, low-error testimony, and then after the second questioning they gave testimony that had a greater number of errors. This is definitely possible, but another scenario is also possible: perhaps these witnesses first gave testimony that by comparison had fewer errors than the testimonies of other witnesses; then after the second questioning, these witnesses stuck to their story, but the other witnesses then gave far more accurate testimony. For example, let's say that one witness, Witness A, falls into the group asked about in the question stem. Let's say that Witness A gave testimony in the first questioning that contained 10 inaccuracies. By comparison, most of the other witnesses gave testimony with 15 inaccuracies. Then, after the second questioning, Witness A gave testimony that again contained 10 inaccuracies, but the other witnesses gave testimony that contained only 5 inaccuracies. This scenario is also plausible, and plays a role in the correct answer.

Answer choice (C) is the correct answer. Under answer choice (C), the witnesses in question stuck to their story and basically gave the same testimony both times. As that occurred, the other, more influenceable witnesses went from a first questioning that induced them to give more inaccurate testimony to a second questioning that lead them to a more accurate testimony.

This is another tricky question, especially because of the way it leads you to interpret the relative accuracies of the witnesses.

Please let me know if that helps. Thanks!

[stsai]

I see! Yes, "by comparison" for #21 is the key.
Thanks for the detailed explanation, Dave!

[karen_k]

Hi,

I am having trouble understanding why C is the correct answer. If those witnesses were less inclined to be influenced in their testimony by the nature of questioning, wouldn't that mean their testimony should have stayed the same with the first lawyer and in the cross-examination? How does that explain their second testimony containing a greater number of inaccurate details? Thank you.

[David Boyle]

Hi,

I am having trouble understanding why C is the correct answer. If those witnesses were less inclined to be influenced in their testimony by the nature of questioning, wouldn't that mean their testimony should have stayed the same with the first lawyer and in the cross-examination? How does that explain their second testimony containing a greater number of inaccurate details? Thank you.

Hello karen_k,

"...than most of the other witnesses" is a key here. Let's say the "less inclined" witnesses gave half of their answers as accurate, half inaccurate. Let's say that that didn't vary at all for the first or second time. By contrast, let's say that during the first session, the other witnesses gave 25% accurate and 75% inaccurate answers (seeing that the lawyer wanted inaccurate answers), but in the second session, they gave 25% inaccurate and 75% accurate answers, with the lawyer who wanted accurate answers.
So yes, their testimony stayed the same maybe, the "less inclined" witnesses; but if all the other witnesses were unduly influenced in the way I mention above, then everything makes sense.

Hope this helps,
David

[karen_k]

Thank you for the explanation!