LSAT 117 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q12

LR Question 12 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Experts hired to testify in court …

QUESTION TYPE: Principle – Application

ANALYSIS: In the stimulus:

• What really matters: expert knowledge
• What juries evaluate: clarity and confidence of presentation
• Result: Some less knowledgeable but more persuasive experts are chosen over more knowledgeable but less persuasive ones

So what principle can we take from that? People are sometimes chosen or rewarded based on their ability to present themselves convincingly, even though that ability is different from the underlying quality or expertise that actually matters.

The correct answer will show a similar example. Try to think of ones yourself to prephrase.

A similar one would be: A great doctor loses out to a mediocre doctor because the mediocre one speaks more confidently.

___________

1. CORRECT. What really matters is understanding how to help the country. But what determines success is skill at conducting an election campaign. So the result is that some politicians who are less insightful are more successful because they are better campaigners.
2. This just says lawyers study drama to improve courtroom skills. It doesn’t say that less knowledgeable lawyers are chosen over more knowledgeable ones because of presentation ability.
3. Tempting. It contrasts vocal and dramatic ability, but it actually says the singer with the best voice is the appropriate choice. The stimulus says the less qualified but more persuasive person is often chosen instead. So this reaches the opposite result.
4. This is just about methods of training children. There’s no selection of a less qualified but more persuasive person.
5. This says applicants are usually hired because their qualifications match the job requirements. Like C, this is the opposite of the stimulus, where people are sometimes selected because of presentation skills rather than actual expertise.