Q13

[hwsitgoing]

I chose A over C because in 55-60 the author talks about how it might be difficult for jurors to understand technical terminology. I could not find support for C that claims the author "accepts the accuracy of such testimony."

Could someone please explain to me why the answer is C and not A?

Thanks!

[giladedelman]

Thanks for posting.

(A) is incorrect because there is zero indication that the author considers medical experts' testimony to be ineffective. He or she does say that the testimony can be difficult to understand, but that is not the same as saying it is less than effective.

(C) has two components: the accuracy part and the limitations part. Support for the limitations part is easy to spot: it's discussed explicitly in the final paragraph.

So how do we know that the author also thinks these experts' testimony is accurate? Let's check out the second paragraph. The author dismisses the complaint that illustrations could be used to misrepresent the facts, arguing that such illustrations would have to pass by medical experts. So since the author is holding up medical experts' testimony as a guarantor of accurate evidence, he or she must consider the experts' testimony to be accurate.

(B) is out because there is no disdain for communication skills.

(D) is incorrect because the passage doesn't suggest that experts attempt to overwhelm anyone.

(E) is out because "intolerance" is way too extreme. The author just thinks that stuff can be confusing.

Does that answer your question?

[schmid215]

I knew I should have gone with my gut on this one. Just felt that the test-writers were going for (C) over (A), and there is more than enough support for (C). However I must say that I disagree with the above justification for eliminating (A), and it seems like as good an answer. If a kind of testimony confuses jurors, it goes without saying that this author would be skeptical of the effectiveness of that kind of testimony, given that s/he obviously places a premium on juror comprehension. One of the principles that undergirds much of the passage is that juror comprehension is an important element in trials.

[schmid215]

I suppose the test-writers were thinking "effective"="convincing". But that needs to be made more clear. Additionally, (C) implies that the author thinks that ME will never err in judgment when testifying, which is a degree issue. End of the day, (C) may be a bit better because it takes into account the upside of medical testimony, but it does have a serious degree issue.

[ttunden]

For these types of questions you have to look for evidence to support the choice that you pick.

so its an author attitude question specifically about medical experts.

well the relevant lines are 25-29(2nd paragraph) and 55-59(last paragraph)

this supports answer choice C pretty well since 25-29 attest to the acceptance of their accuracy, and then the end of answer choice C is supported by 55-59

A- you can make a good argument for the 2nd half of answer choice A but the 1st half is unsupported. Appreciation? where? where is the line? to be honest, skepticism sound's pretty strong too. I don't think the author is skeptical of the medical experts testimony. In fact, it looks like the author respects their testimony based off lines 25-29. Skeptical is a pretty strong word, and I don't think the last paragraph warrants that.

B- nothing about disdain for communication skills. eliminate

D- 2nd half no support.eliminate. I don't think they intentionally try to overwhelm judges and juror. Author doesn't say this explicitly either, that they intentionally try to do that.

E nah this is wrong. No need to explain.

[KenM242]

Someone said above that there is ZERO indication is given about the 'skepticism concerning effectiveness of such testimony' and this is just wrong. Last 8 lines is devoted precisely to indicate just that. If medical experts inevitably use too many big words and this makes it difficult for some of the listeners to understand exactly what they're saying, that means the testimony is something less than the most effective because a testimony or speech for any purpose is to make people understand.

Someone else reasoned based on the definition of appreciation alone, but appreciation doesn't just mean you are grateful something but also that you acknowledge. The author acknowledges the difficulty involved in getting the message across entirely and accurately through the testimony.

I've also read from another forum that (A) is wrong because this very 'difficulty' is not of 'explaining' on the experts' part but of 'understanding' on the listeners'. This is also wrong. Too see why, when a teacher is teaching a student, it doesn't matter whether the teacher is too dumb to teach or the student is too dumb to understand. Is learning is not happening, then the teacher can say "I'm having difficulty teaching this student." It doesn't matter who the source of this difficulty is.

THE ONLY REASON I CAN THINK OF, that the test writer deems (A) wrong, is that the last paragraph does not indicate the audience of the medical experts' testimony. The passage does say the information is used primarily for the judges and jury, but as far as [the difficulty explaining/understanding] is concerned, the paragraph does NOT specify that judges and jurors are the ones suffering the hardship.

There is no other way I can accept (A) to be the wrong answer.

[JohnZ880]

Someone said above that there is ZERO indication is given about the 'skepticism concerning effectiveness of such testimony' and this is just wrong. Last 8 lines is devoted precisely to indicate just that. If medical experts inevitably use too many big words and this makes it difficult for some of the listeners to understand exactly what they're saying, that means the testimony is something less than the most effective because a testimony or speech for any purpose is to make people understand.

Someone else reasoned based on the definition of appreciation alone, but appreciation doesn't just mean you are grateful something but also that you acknowledge. The author acknowledges the difficulty involved in getting the message across entirely and accurately through the testimony.

I've also read from another forum that (A) is wrong because this very 'difficulty' is not of 'explaining' on the experts' part but of 'understanding' on the listeners'. This is also wrong. Too see why, when a teacher is teaching a student, it doesn't matter whether the teacher is too dumb to teach or the student is too dumb to understand. Is learning is not happening, then the teacher can say "I'm having difficulty teaching this student." It doesn't matter who the source of this difficulty is.

THE ONLY REASON I CAN THINK OF, that the test writer deems (A) wrong, is that the last paragraph does not indicate the audience of the medical experts' testimony. The passage does say the information is used primarily for the judges and jury, but as far as [the difficulty explaining/understanding] is concerned, the paragraph does NOT specify that judges and jurors are the ones suffering the hardship.

There is no other way I can accept (A) to be the wrong answer.

(A) is wrong because there is absolutely no support for the line that the author shows an "appreciation of the difficulty involved in explaining medical data to judges..." Appreciation is much more than acknowledgement, although appreciation of course requires acknowledgement. Your own reasoning points out why A is incorrect. You state that appreciation implies acknowledgment, which makes acknowledgment a necessary condition, not a sufficient condition. Appreciation is more-so a value laden term, whereas acknowledgement is much more objective in tone.

This question is a bit of a time consumer though because it required me to get to the right answer by eliminating all the others. I was looking for an answer that accounted for how the technical jargon confused jurors. When I saw (C) I was like, "true, but perhaps a bit too narrow." Going forward I will spend less time double checking other potential contenders just because the answer I got to doesn't incorporate the entirety of the author's attitude.

[JigyasuP507]

Author’s attitude towards the ‘testimony of medical experts in personal injury case:-
It’s better to anticipate before going to AC.
1. Support of this AC can be found in paragraph 2, where author is positive as he said illustrations are admissible only where those illustrations’ accuracy is testified by experts.
2. Another support can be found in paragraph 4, where he acknowledges the limitations of expert testimony( line 58-59, difficult to translate mentally into visual imagery).

A “Appreciation of the difficulty ......” is not right, bcz it is custom made illustration that is involved in explaining medical data as it has relevant facts (line39-46). Expert testimony is not mentioned in paragraph 3. And the author is positive about custom made illustrations that include relevant facts. AC A is unsupported.

Additionally, “skepticism about effectiveness” also wrong here, because author seems skeptic about expert testimony but in terms of lacking translation of mental facts into visual imagery. And this AC overgeneralize author’s attitude concerning it’s effectiveness.

C AC C is the right AC as it matches to what we anticipated above.

[WilliamS670]

The only possible justification for the incorrectness of (A) is that 'effective' means 'persuasive' to a judge or jury as opposed to 'intelligible' to a judge or jury. The latter is clearly better supported than the former. The test-writers meant the former, however. 'Appreciation' can simply mean 'cognizance' - Q.E.D. on that criticism of (A). The second half of (C) looks good, but expressed conditionally, the first half is 'medical expert testimony--->accurate', which is too extreme. The final sentence of the second paragraph does not lend strong support to the idea that the author views medical expert testimony as unfailingly accurate.

This question really screws people who (with very good reason) interpret 'effective' to mean 'intelligible'.

EDIT: One way to save the first half of (C) is to interpret 'acceptance of the accuracy of such testimony' to mean acceptance of its accuracy for purposes of legal decisions concerning admissibility, which is different from 'medical expert testimony---->accurate'. A legal decision on admissibility being premised on the accuracy of such testimony wouldn't necessarily imply that such testimony is unfailingly accurate. Still, even in that case, you've got two answers, (A) and (C), neither of which presents a clear advantage. This is a poor question given the clear warrant for interpreting 'effective' to mean 'intelligible'.