PrepTest 146, Section 3, Question 8
Numerous studies suggest that when scientific evidence is(56 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(14 more words not shown)
- Awhether jurors typically(11 more words not shown)
- Bwhether jurors' reactions(14 more words not shown)
- Chow jurors determine(14 more words not shown)
- Dwhether jurors typically(13 more words not shown)
- Ehow jurors respond(13 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Do the jurors know the judge screened the evidence?
The hypothesis offers an explanation for a difference in trust: people find the same scientific evidence more credible inside a courtroom than outside it because a judge has checked it. I can see how believing that a judge approved the evidence might reassure a juror. But the approval can't explain that conscious reassurance if the juror has no idea it happened.
Other features of the setting might matter. Perhaps jurors pay closer attention in court, or the evidence is delivered by an impressive expert, or the courtroom setting itself encourages trust. Those are possible alternatives; the passage hasn't established which explanation accounts for the difference.
What we’re looking for
The question asks what would help evaluate the proposed explanation. I'd check whether jurors know about the screening. That lets us test a connection the theorists' explanation needs, rather than merely assuming that a procedure affects people's judgment because the procedure exists.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
If jurors typically know judges have appraised the evidence, that makes the proposed reassurance possible: they can regard the judge's screening as a reason to trust what they hear. If they don't know, that explanation becomes much harder to sustain.
Awareness wouldn't prove the judge's approval is the main cause of the extra trust. The other features of a courtroom could still matter. But the answer would directly test whether the proposed explanation can work in the way suggested.
- B
Other jurors could influence someone's reaction, but this broad question doesn't establish why the same evidence is trusted more in court. Such influence might increase trust, decrease it, or concern something else entirely. It also doesn't directly check the proposed connection between judicial screening and jurors' confidence. An alternative cause can matter, but A tests this hypothesis much more specifically.
- C
Judging an expert witness's credibility is not the same as explaining the extra credibility assigned to scientific evidence in a courtroom. Jurors might assess a speaker's appearance or manner in many settings. C doesn't directly ask whether the judge's screening accounts for the inside-versus-outside difference.
- D
People might draw on their scientific knowledge both in court and outside it. Knowing that they do so at trial doesn't explain the difference between those contexts or test whether judicial screening produces the extra trust.
- E
This concerns how jurors choose between conflicting experts. Our question is why courtroom evidence gets greater trust than the same evidence outside court, not which of two trial witnesses jurors prefer. E doesn't directly test the screening explanation.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.