LSAT Forum
2 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- IneedLSAThelp
-
Thanks Received: 1
-
Vinny Gambini
- Posts: 2
- Joined: June 15th, 2012
Q11
I eliminated the other answer choices to get to answer choice C, but I still don't really see how Passage A discusses the differences in the identification practices used by various fingerprint examiners. Is it because of the lines in the second paragraph where the defendant cites testimony of an fingerprint examiner that there is no generally accepted standard regarding the number of "points of identification" required for a positive identification?
-
- tommywallach
-
Thanks Received: 468
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 1041
- Joined: August 11th, 2009
- This post thanked 3 times.
Re: Q11
Hey There INeedLSATHelp (Love the literal name!),
Well, whenever you get the right answer, even if you hate it, it's worth remembering that you're out there to pick the best answer, not always the perfect answer. This is a comparative passage, and the question is asking what the two passages have in common (which is a lot!). Let's real quick run the answers, then we can talk about your issue with (C).
(A) Only the first passage mentions a defendant, and even then, it's arguable whether it is succeeding in exposing any weaknesses, given the overall thesis of passage 1.
(B) Nowhere is it implied that the people themselves don't have integrity, merely that their process may not be rigorous enough.
(D) Nothing about "partial" or "smudged" is mentioned in Passage 1 (it IS mentioned in Passage 2, in the second paragraph).
(E) Same as (D), not in Passage 1, but in Passage 2.
As for (C):
Passage 1: While I would agree with you that we don't DISCUSS the differences specifically, we DO discuss how they relate to reliability. Consider these sentences: "While it may be true that different agencies require different degrees of correlation before permitting a positive ID" and "the development of even more consistent standards may be desirable." Both of them discuss the reality that there are different practices used, and this could affect reliability.
Passage 2: The whole thing talks about these differences, for example "Some examiners use a 'point-counting' method that entails counting the number of similar 'ridge' characteristics on prints, but there is no fixed requirement about how many points of similarity are needed, and local practices vary."
Hope that helps!
-t
Well, whenever you get the right answer, even if you hate it, it's worth remembering that you're out there to pick the best answer, not always the perfect answer. This is a comparative passage, and the question is asking what the two passages have in common (which is a lot!). Let's real quick run the answers, then we can talk about your issue with (C).
(A) Only the first passage mentions a defendant, and even then, it's arguable whether it is succeeding in exposing any weaknesses, given the overall thesis of passage 1.
(B) Nowhere is it implied that the people themselves don't have integrity, merely that their process may not be rigorous enough.
(D) Nothing about "partial" or "smudged" is mentioned in Passage 1 (it IS mentioned in Passage 2, in the second paragraph).
(E) Same as (D), not in Passage 1, but in Passage 2.
As for (C):
Passage 1: While I would agree with you that we don't DISCUSS the differences specifically, we DO discuss how they relate to reliability. Consider these sentences: "While it may be true that different agencies require different degrees of correlation before permitting a positive ID" and "the development of even more consistent standards may be desirable." Both of them discuss the reality that there are different practices used, and this could affect reliability.
Passage 2: The whole thing talks about these differences, for example "Some examiners use a 'point-counting' method that entails counting the number of similar 'ridge' characteristics on prints, but there is no fixed requirement about how many points of similarity are needed, and local practices vary."
Hope that helps!
-t
2 posts Page 1 of 1