LSAT 148 | Section 4 | Logical Reasoning: Q17

LR Question 17 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: When expert witnesses give testimony, jurors often do…

QUESTION TYPE: Most Strongly Supported

FACTS:

1. Jurors often can’t evaluate expert witness testimony, because the information is too technical.
2. Despite conflicting claims, expert witnesses on opposite sides often all seem competent.
3. As such, the jury can’t assess the reliability of their testimony.

ANALYSIS: The only thing that jumped out at me was reliability. Twice, the author said that jurors weren’t able to assess the reliability of expert witnesses.

I used this to prephrase: I figured the right answer would involve reliability, even though I didn’t know how. As it happens, only one answer even mentions reliability.

___________

1. This is an odd response. Some legal cases are simply technical in nature. How could you have a trial without this information? In any case, the stimulus didn’t say anything to support this answer.
2. CORRECT. We know that if a jury is used in a trial, then the jury will have to reach some deciison. So if juries aren’t making decisions based on reliability, then they must be deciding for some other reason.
    
   You absolutely can use common knowledge such as “trials are not cancelled merely because the jury is confused”. The LSAT requires it.
3. This doesn’t follow. The law is complicated, and the stimulus didn’t saw how well jurors understood legal implications.
4. Technical understanding is just one factor. The stimulus didn’t say whether there are other factors that are more important.
5. The stimulus actually somewhat contradicts this: it says that “expert witnesses on opposite sides often make conflicting claims”.

Recap: The question begins with “When expert witnesses give testimony, jurors often”. It is a Most Strongly Supported question. To practice more Most Strongly Supported questions, have a look at the LSAT Questions by Type page.