PrepTest 148, Section 4, Question 17
When expert witnesses give testimony, jurors often do(45 more words not shown)
The statements above, if true,(8 more words not shown)
- AThere should be(18 more words not shown)
- BJury decisions in(15 more words not shown)
- CJurors who understand(14 more words not shown)
- DJury members should(10 more words not shown)
- EExpert witnesses who(17 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Couldn't the other side bring in an expert to explain what's wrong with the first expert's testimony? That is my initial response to the problem of jurors not understanding technical information. A competing witness might help them see which account makes sense.
But the passage describes the difficulty that remains: the witnesses conflict, yet both seem competent. One appears to know the subject and says one thing; the other also appears capable and says something incompatible. The jurors still lack the understanding needed to decide whose testimony is reliable.
What we’re looking for
My first reaction is that expert testimony may not give jurors as much useful guidance as we'd hope. For the inference, though, we need a conclusion that stays within the described difficulty. We shouldn't turn a problem that often occurs into a claim that every expert is useless or every jury is incapable.
Working the answers
- A
Limiting technical information is a proposed solution, not a conclusion established by these observations. Less information might create other problems or leave the jurors less informed. The passage describes a difficulty without giving a rule that requires this particular restriction.
- BCorrect
If jurors can't assess which conflicting testimony is reliable, we have support for the modest conclusion that their decisions aren't always determined by that reliability. They must decide despite lacking a reliable basis for choosing between the experts. This doesn't mean every expert is unhelpful or that reliability never matters. B states a limit on what guides some decisions, rather than condemning expert testimony altogether.
- C
The passage focuses on jurors who don't understand the technical information. It doesn't establish what jurors who do understand it can usually do. Technical understanding also isn't automatically expertise in the information's legal implications. C adds a different ability for a different group.
- D
Selecting jurors by technical expertise is another proposed remedy. The observations don't tell us that this should generally be the selection rule. We would need additional reasons to evaluate that policy, beyond recognizing the problem described here.
- E
The passage emphasizes frequent conflicting claims, not likely agreement. 'Often conflict' doesn't mathematically rule out agreement in many other cases, but it supplies no basis for concluding that opposing experts are likely to agree. E doesn't follow from the pattern we're given.
More Must Be True questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Must Be True questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.