Q14

[greenbean]

For question 14, what clues in the text would lead to showing that B was the right answer? I didn't really find any of the answers choices for this one that appealing.

[tommywallach]

Hey Ly,

Great question here. I don't love any of the answer choices either, but of course, we have to decide, right? So we're just going to pick the best of 5 bad options!

First, let's make sure our understanding of the passage is solid. The scale here (i.e. the two sides present in 99% of LSAT passages) is between people who think fingerprinting is legit and those who think it's not.

Passage A: More or less says fingerprinting is good enough to be used in court.

Passage B: Focuses on problems with fingerprinting, though never says outright whether it's good enough or not


Now let's look at the question. What is different about Passage B. Well, if I had to put it into MY OWN words, I'd say that Passage B is not advising us to do anything, but simply discussing the facts. Let's see if anything matches up:

A) Oooo, definitely not more optimistic. It doesn't really come to any conclusions, but if it did, they'd probably be negative anyway.

B) I don't love the word "general", but this is vaguely reminiscent of what I wrote (it's a more general overview of facts, rather than a case being made for one side of an argument).

C) C doesn't actually make any claims. It's all about the facts, and it is not tentative in stating them.

D) This passage primarily discusses why fingerprints are bad. As an example, look at the last couple sentences: "Although some proficiency tests show examiners making few or no errors, these tests have been criticized as lax; a more rigorous test showed a 34 percent rate of erroneous identification." Notice the words "a more rigorous test". What does that mean? It means that the people who did the test where examiners didn't make many mistakes were NOT being rigorous enough. That's hardly respect!

E) Again, everything here is presented as a fact (studies, numbers, etc.), so I don't think we can point to anything as an "unsubstantiated assumption."

Definitely a tough question, but B is the best of a lot of bad answers. Let me know if that makes sense. In the future, always try to take a stab at your favorite answer, because then it's easier to see which mistake your brain made, so you can adjust for it in the future.

-t

[shirando21]

Hey Ly,

Great question here. I don't love any of the answer choices either, but of course, we have to decide, right? So we're just going to pick the best of 5 bad options!

First, let's make sure our understanding of the passage is solid. The scale here (i.e. the two sides present in 99% of LSAT passages) is between people who think fingerprinting is legit and those who think it's not.

Passage A: More or less says fingerprinting is good enough to be used in court.

Passage B: Focuses on problems with fingerprinting, though never says outright whether it's good enough or not


Now let's look at the question. What is different about Passage B. Well, if I had to put it into MY OWN words, I'd say that Passage B is not advising us to do anything, but simply discussing the facts. Let's see if anything matches up:

A) Oooo, definitely not more optimistic. It doesn't really come to any conclusions, but if it did, they'd probably be negative anyway.

B) I don't love the word "general", but this is vaguely reminiscent of what I wrote (it's a more general overview of facts, rather than a case being made for one side of an argument).

C) C doesn't actually make any claims. It's all about the facts, and it is not tentative in stating them.

D) This passage primarily discusses why fingerprints are bad. As an example, look at the last couple sentences: "Although some proficiency tests show examiners making few or no errors, these tests have been criticized as lax; a more rigorous test showed a 34 percent rate of erroneous identification." Notice the words "a more rigorous test". What does that mean? It means that the people who did the test where examiners didn't make many mistakes were NOT being rigorous enough. That's hardly respect!

E) Again, everything here is presented as a fact (studies, numbers, etc.), so I don't think we can point to anything as an "unsubstantiated assumption."

Definitely a tough question, but B is the best of a lot of bad answers. Let me know if that makes sense. In the future, always try to take a stab at your favorite answer, because then it's easier to see which mistake your brain made, so you can adjust for it in the future.

-t

So, B means passage B is more neutral? this is a tricky answer, usually if it says it is neutral, it is a wrong answer, so I just crossed this out without even thinking about it...

[agersh144]

I chose C tenative in claims because the author is not certain "i.e. tenative" concerning in its claims "that we can be sure one way or the other concerning the reliability of fingerprinting -- it's uncertain/unclear/yet to be determined by more rigorous testing" I can understand why B is correct but I feel like this one is too viable an option for the LSAT to permit and thus ought to be removed like LG #17 lol. Thoughts?

[agersh144]

Lol woah just had the weirdest deja vu ever --- I missed this question again some 4+ months later after going through all of PTs 1-65 and went to read the question and saw the comment above and was like woah - I completely agree remove this question and then I see that the person who posted it was me --- lolol double shame and embarrassment - I got dupped twice by the same question in 4 months...sigh I still hate (b) but now with more passion and fervor. Sigh.

[leroyjenkins]

Not sure I'd agree that it should have been removed, but I definitely didn't like this question in the first go around.

In hindsight, though, I think B makes perfect sense.

Passage A is a judge's decision regarding a specific case.

Passage B is about the reliability of fingerprint evidence in practice, not simply pertaining to a single trial decision.

The author in B definitely has a more tentative tone, but there aren't many claims in the passage (if any). Really, it seems like the evidence presented is more tentative, but the author doesn't make claims about the evidence - he just presents it.

[FarOutsidetheBox]

I chose C tenative in claims because the author is not certain "i.e. tenative" concerning in its claims "that we can be sure one way or the other concerning the reliability of fingerprinting -- it's uncertain/unclear/yet to be determined by more rigorous testing" I can understand why B is correct but I feel like this one is too viable an option for the LSAT to permit and thus ought to be removed like LG #17 lol. Thoughts?

I got this question wrong and at first I thought it was total BS. As I look over it, though, I see LSAC is right in this instance (it sometimes happens).

You are correct that the Author B says "we really can't be too sure how accurate fingerprinting is." Sounds awfully tentative, doesn't it? NO! It isn't tentative at all. The author is making a DEFINITE claim that we don't know enough about fingerprinting and need to investigate it more.

Moreover, B is correct. Passage A is concerned, at its core, with one specific case and what should be decided here. Passage B deals with the much more general question of "are fingerprints ever legit."

Sucks for us but we just got a hard question wrong.

[krisk743]

Why isn't E the right answer?

I understand that he has some evidence to his claims but it seems as though the author's own questions throughout the passage is not answered. I feel like that's what is driving him to look into the issue of fingerprints and essentially is unsubstantiated (for the most part).

I was between B and E and chose E because I thought they were trying to be clever and have us notice whether we picked up on how every other sentence he gave was a rhetorical question.

Thanks in advance

[MichaelC134]

If there ever was a question that epitomized the effectiveness of ManhattanPrep's "wrong-to-right" approach, this question does. During timed conditions, I could not make a case for (b), but could definitely eliminate (a), (c), (d) and (e) for the reasons stated above.

One reason why (b) might be considered more general is merely because (a) is relatively so specific. (a) is a judge discussing "fingerprint identification" within the context of whether fingerprint evidence should be admissible while (b) is discussing "fingerprint identification" more holistically.

[MayaM405]

Can you explain how you eliminated C? I guess I understand the answer but definitely eliminating C because Passage B "had no claims" seems like a big stretch for me under timed conditions. Thanks!

If there ever was a question that epitomized the effectiveness of ManhattanPrep's "wrong-to-right" approach, this question does. During timed conditions, I could not make a case for (b), but could definitely eliminate (a), (c), (d) and (e) for the reasons stated above.

One reason why (b) might be considered more general is merely because (a) is relatively so specific. (a) is a judge discussing "fingerprint identification" within the context of whether fingerprint evidence should be admissible while (b) is discussing "fingerprint identification" more holistically.

[TsaiP612]

I hope to make sure that answer D is incorrect including the reason below in addition to the reasons mentioned above.

Answer D wrote "respectful of opposing claims".

First, we need to think what is the opposing claims in this passage. The central opinion of this passage is that there are lack of objective standards in fingerprint examination, so the rates of correctness of fingerprint examination are low.

Therefore, the opposing claims in the passage are those believe that 1) objective standard exists. 2) the examination is highly correct.

However, in this passage, the author didn't mention a lot of opposing claims. Even though the author had mentioned some claims, he didn't respect them. On the other hand, the author insist that the rates of correctness of fingerprint examination are indeed low. (Look at line 65)

Hope thought right and help!

[BookerH624]

I got this one wrong but after re-examining the passages I think I understand why C is chosen.
Passage A talks about fingerprint identification in a rather narrow scope -- in a courtroom as evidence. It acknowledges that fingerprint can be unreliable when it is not subjected to uniform standards of practice. But in a courtroom setting, it can be reliable.
Passage B talks about fingerprint identification in general where its application is not limited to a courtroom. So that makes it have a broader focus I think?