QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning
CONCLUSION: Courts shouldn’t allow DNA evidence.
REASONING: Scientists don’t agree exactly how reliable these tests are.
ANALYSIS: The LSAT loves to play with the precise meaning of words. Controversy doesn’t mean that scientists think the tests are worthless. It just means they disagree on how useful they are. So some scientists could think that the tests are 99.9% reliable, while others violently disagree and claim the tests are…99.1% reliable. That’s a real difference, but either way the test is useful.
Note that the author gives advice on what courts should do. She’s aware they’re allowed to admit DNA evidence, she just thinks they shouldn’t.
- This describes what courts are allowed to do. The argument was about what courts should do.
- The argument didn’t say evidence had to be 100% certain. The author implied that DNA tests are much less than 100% unreliable. It’s not a flaw to say that unreliable tests are bad.
- CORRECT. Experts can passionately argue over whether a test is 99.1% or 99.9% accurate. Either way, the test is still very reliable.
- This strengthens the argument. The author thinks we shouldn’t admit DNA evidence.
- So? The author is talking about DNA evidence in criminal cases. Controversies about evidence (all types of evidence) in non-criminal cases aren’t relevant.
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly