PrepTest 117, Section 2, Question 12
Experts hired to testify in court need to(57 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(11 more words not shown)
- ASuccessful politicians are(28 more words not shown)
- BTrial lawyers often(26 more words not shown)
- CThe opera singer(33 more words not shown)
- DIt is often(41 more words not shown)
- EJob applicants are(33 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Knowing the medicine isn't enough if the jury can't follow the doctor.
At first, I might wonder why an expert needs to make a convincing presentation. Isn't helping the witness explain things part of the lawyer's job? But the next sentence gives a reason presentation still matters: juries evaluate whether experts explain the steps to their conclusions clearly and confidently. A lawyer's questions won't necessarily make an unclear answer convincing.
Imagine choosing between a brilliant doctor who struggles to communicate and a somewhat less knowledgeable doctor who explains the medical issues clearly. If the jury can't understand the brilliant doctor's reasoning, the extra expertise may not help the case. That makes sense of why the better communicator sometimes gets the job.
What we’re looking for
We need another situation illustrating the same principle. The important comparison is presentation versus underlying knowledge or expertise. Sometimes the person who can persuade an audience succeeds over someone who knows more. Keep both sides of that comparison; an answer about presentation alone won't reproduce the point.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Understanding how to help the country corresponds to the expert's underlying knowledge. Conducting an effective campaign corresponds to making a persuasive presentation. Some politicians succeed despite lacking insight because they're skilled at campaigning, just as a less expert witness may be chosen because the witness communicates more convincingly.
The point isn't that knowledge never matters or that every successful politician lacks it. It's that success doesn't always go to the person with the deepest knowledge; persuasive presentation can matter enough to make the difference.
- B
Drama techniques might help lawyers influence jurors, but where is the comparison with greater knowledge? B tells us that lawyers improve their presentation skills. It doesn't say that lawyers with less legal expertise succeed over more knowledgeable lawyers because of those skills. The courtroom setting matches, but the central comparison is missing.
- C
This is a tempting analogy, but it points the other way. The best voice would correspond to the strongest underlying expertise, while dramatic ability would correspond to persuasive presentation. C recommends choosing the best voice even when the more dramatic singer affects the audience more. Our passage describes presentation sometimes winning over greater expertise. C recommends giving priority to the underlying skill instead.
- D
Gentle reinforcement and direct commands are two ways to encourage children's behavior. The comparison concerns why children comply: because they want to or because they feel compelled. There isn't a less knowledgeable but more persuasive person succeeding over a more knowledgeable person. It's a different relationship, regardless of whether the parenting advice is good.
- E
Matching an applicant's qualifications to an existing job is different from deciding between expertise and presentation. Tailoring a job to a particular person's skills doesn't establish that a persuasive but less qualified applicant is chosen over a more qualified one. E contrasts fitting a job with changing the job, which isn't our principle.
More Parallel Reasoning questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Reasoning questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.