LSAT 105 | Section 4 | Logical Reasoning: Q16

LR Question 16 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: The miscarriage of justice in the Barker case …

QUESTION TYPE: Strengthen

CONCLUSION: We shouldn’t condemn forensic science for the injustice in the Barker case.

REASONING: Some of the forensic scientists mistakenly believed they only owed loyalty to the prosecution, so they failed to provide evidence impartially to both sides.

ANALYSIS: The author’s argument is basically:

• A few forensic scientists behaved improperly.
• So we shouldn’t blame forensic science overall.

We want to strengthen that forensic science in general isn’t to blame. We can do that by showing that these scientists are the exception, and not representative of the profession.

Because if most forensic scientists do share the same improper beliefs, then maybe the problem is the profession as a whole.

To strengthen the argument, we’d want evidence showing that most forensic scientists aren’t like these ones. That would make the Barker scientists look like bad actors deviating from professional norms, supporting the conclusion that forensic science in general shouldn’t be condemned.

___________

1. CORRECT. This shows that the ones in the Barker case didn’t represent the profession as a whole. Their conduct violated the profession’s accepted standards, making it more reasonable to blame the individuals rather than forensic science generally.
2. This actually makes the problem seem more widespread. If similar injustices have happened repeatedly, we may become more willing to criticize forensic science generally.
3. Prosecutors’ beliefs don’t tell us what forensic scientists generally believe or what their professional obligations are. If anything, this could suggest systemic pressure that makes general criticism of forensic science more plausible.
4. Other kinds of injustice occurring elsewhere tell us nothing about whether forensic science deserves blame in this particular case.
5. Whether many forensic scientists deny that the Barker case was a miscarriage of justice doesn’t show that forensic science itself shouldn’t be condemned. It just tells us their opinion about this case.