RC Question 13 Explanation
DISCUSSION: The author thinks that medical experts are reliable (lines 28-29) but confusing (lines 55-59) without diagrams.
The author has a neutral attitude towards experts. He doesn’t think they should change. I doubt the authors thinks experts can change. You can’t describe technical details of the body without technical words.
But such testimony will be hard to understand without a diagram to clarify it.
___________
- The author isn’t “skeptical” of testimony. The author plainly states that testimony is confusing. That’s more than skeptical. And the author proposes a solution: custom images. Skeptics rarely propose action, instead they sow doubt.
- This is tempting. The author did say that medical experts are hard to understand. But the problem isn’t their communications skills. The problem is that it’s very, very hard to describe technical details to an everyday audience.
- CORRECT. Lines 28-29 suggest that the author accepts that medical experts give good testimony. Lines 55-59 show that testimony is hard to understand without diagrams.
- The author did say that medical experts can overwhelm juries. But the author didn’t say that medical experts try to overwhelm juries.
- The author said medical terminology is confusing. But the author didn’t say medical experts should stop using it. The author appears to admit that describing the human body requires technical language.
I’m confused as to why A is wrong. Isn’t the author skeptical about the effectiveness of the testimony because the jurors are confused (and therefore the testimony is not received effectively)?
This isn’t correct. Juries aren’t confused, because well made medical diagrams help them interpret expert testimony. Juries **would** be confused without these diagrams. But we do have these diagrams, so juries aren’t confused.
Note: This is an old comment but I wanted to clarify the point.