PrepTest 134, Section 1, Question 19
Court analyst: Courts should not allow the use(48 more words not shown)
The court analyst's reasoning is(9 more words not shown)
- Acourts have the(17 more words not shown)
- Bthe standard against(13 more words not shown)
- Cexperts may agree(14 more words not shown)
- Ddata should not(19 more words not shown)
- Ethere are also(8 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A disagreement about reliability doesn't automatically mean the experts think a test is unreliable.
The analyst wants to exclude DNA tests because their reliability is controversial. That's a strong recommendation. What are the experts actually disagreeing about? A substantial controversy could coexist with broad agreement on an important point. We need to know the content of the disagreement before deciding that it defeats the case for using the tests.
What we’re looking for
The analyst's rule requires widespread scientific agreement about reliability. The evidence gives us considerable controversy. For the flaw question, I'd look for a way both descriptions could fit: there could be controversy without the kind of disagreement that justifies excluding the evidence. We should evaluate that reasoning using the stated facts, rather than bringing in outside views about DNA testing.
Working the answers
- A
Having authority to admit evidence doesn't settle whether admitting it would be reasonable. The analyst is making a recommendation, not denying the courts' power to choose. A court could be able to admit a test and still have a reason not to do so. The power to act doesn't answer the reliability argument.
- B
Absolute certainty and widespread agreement are different standards. Experts could all agree that a test is highly reliable without thinking it is perfect. The analyst doesn't demand a test with no possibility of error; the stated demand concerns agreement about reliability. Rejecting an absolute-certainty standard therefore doesn't directly answer the reason given for excluding these tests.
- CCorrect
The experts could agree that the tests are highly reliable and disagree only about the precise degree. Imagine one group saying 99 percent reliable and another saying 99.9 percent reliable. Their numbers differ, but neither group thinks the test is generally unreliable.
That gives concrete content to the possibility we wanted to check. “How reliable?” could mean a dispute between very reliable and even more reliable, rather than between reliable and worthless. The analyst treats controversy as grounds for exclusion without considering that the experts may already share the agreement that matters for using the evidence.
- D
Requiring scientific witnesses to agree before evidence is admitted reinforces a demand for agreement. It doesn't identify a possibility that makes the analyst's reasoning faulty. We need to examine why the existing controversy may not justify exclusion, not add another version of a restriction based on disagreement.
- E
Controversy in noncriminal cases doesn't resolve the issue about DNA tests in criminal cases. The same reasoning problem could arise elsewhere, but pointing to another controversy tells us nothing about the content or significance of this one.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.