PrepTest 105, Section 4, Question 16
The miscarriage of justice in the Barker case(62 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(6 more words not shown)
- AMost forensic scientists(15 more words not shown)
- BThe type of(14 more words not shown)
- CMost prosecuting lawyers(11 more words not shown)
- DMany instances of(18 more words not shown)
- EMany forensic scientists(13 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The scientists were supposed to supply evidence fairly. Instead, they treated themselves as members of the prosecution's team. I can see why that could lead to an injustice: imagine withholding evidence that would help the defense because it would hurt the prosecution's case. The passage establishes a failure to provide evidence impartially, even without specifying exactly what was withheld.
But who should take the blame? These scientists made the mistake. Does that mean forensic science itself deserves condemnation? My first reaction is that we should blame the people who misused it.
Then again, what if their attitude is normal in the field? If forensic scientists generally see themselves as working only for prosecutors, it would be harder to dismiss this as a problem with a few individuals. That's the question the argument leaves open.
What we’re looking for
We're asked to strengthen the argument. Show me that these scientists do not represent the field's usual standards. That would help explain why their conduct should not condemn forensic science in general.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Most forensic scientists recognize an obligation to provide evidence impartially to both sides. That gives us the distinction we wanted: the people in the Barker case acted against a professional obligation that most members of the field acknowledge.
Recognizing an obligation doesn't guarantee that someone always fulfills it. We don't need that guarantee to strengthen the argument, though. A makes it less reasonable to treat these scientists' professed allegiance to the prosecution as the position of forensic scientists generally.
- B
Similar injustices elsewhere do not help isolate the problem to the Barker scientists. If anything, more cases give us more reason to investigate a broader problem. B doesn't show how common these cases are, so it isn't decisive evidence against the field. But it supplies no support for the conclusion we're trying to strengthen.
- C
What prosecutors believe scientists owe them doesn't establish what the scientists themselves believe or do. A lawyer might want special allegiance and still receive impartial evidence. The question is whether these scientists' conduct gives us a reason to condemn their field, and C doesn't settle that.
- D
Other kinds of injustice don't explain who deserves blame for this kind. A court could make mistakes for many unrelated reasons while forensic science also had a serious problem. D leaves the argument's distinction between these scientists and their field untouched.
- E
This gives us other forensic scientists who deny that anything went wrong in the Barker case. That could make the problem look more widespread, although we don't know why those scientists reached their view. It certainly doesn't help show that the Barker scientists departed from their colleagues' commitment to impartiality.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.