PrepTest 125, Section 4, Question 21
In an experiment, volunteers witnessed a simulated crime.(83 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(27 more words not shown)
- AThese witnesses were(11 more words not shown)
- BThese witnesses had(9 more words not shown)
- CThese witnesses were(20 more words not shown)
- DThese witnesses were(17 more words not shown)
- EThese witnesses tended(12 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Are these witnesses changing, or are the other witnesses changing?
At first, the results sound backward. The first lawyer tries to draw out inaccurate testimony, yet these witnesses make fewer errors than most. The second lawyer tries to correct errors, yet these same witnesses now make more errors than most. Are they deliberately doing the opposite of what each lawyer wants?
That is one possible first reaction, but check the comparisons. We haven't been told that these witnesses became less accurate. We've been told how they compared with other witnesses at two different stages. Their own testimony could stay fairly steady while the other witnesses change.
What we’re looking for
Maybe these are the people who are hard to influence. They resist the first lawyer's attempts to mislead them, but they also resist the second lawyer's attempts to correct them. Being hard to sway could help in the first interview and hurt in the second. For this resolve-the-conflict question, I want an explanation that accounts for both results, not just a reason these people would generally be accurate.
Working the answers
- A
Noticing more details could help witnesses give accurate testimony. But why would that advantage leave them with more errors than most of the others in the second interview? A doesn't explain the change in their relative performance when the questioning changes.
- B
Better memories could also help in both interviews. The puzzle is why these witnesses compare favorably with others under misleading questioning but unfavorably under corrective questioning. A general memory advantage doesn't explain that pattern.
- CCorrect
These witnesses are less influenced by the questions. That protects them from some of the first lawyer's misleading suggestions, but it also makes them less receptive to the second lawyer's corrections. Meanwhile, more easily influenced witnesses can be led astray and then helped back toward accuracy.
Imagine our resistant witnesses make two errors in each interview. Most others make five errors in the first interview and none in the second. The resistant witnesses would have fewer errors at first and more afterward, exactly as described, without becoming less accurate themselves. Those numbers are just an illustration of how the two comparisons can coexist.
- D
This describes witnesses becoming more accurate as they answer questions. It doesn't explain why these particular witnesses end up making more errors than most of the others. We still need to connect the two groups' different responses to the two kinds of questioning.
- E
More details doesn't tell us how many details are wrong. It might give someone more opportunities to make errors, but that alone wouldn't explain fewer errors than most witnesses in the first interview and more in the second. The changing influence of the questions is what C addresses.
More Paradox questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Paradox questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.