Q20 - People who have specialized knowledge

[lichenrachel]

the argument:
people with specialized knowledge are exclude from juries for relevant trials --> trial by jury is unfair

Can some one show me how the answer B weakens the argument while the other choices don't? I am having difficulties in distinguishing the correct answer from irrelevant answers. (I thought B was irrelevant, for I thought it describes a possibility "before the trial begin", which might not have any effect on the trial outcome.)

Many thanks!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Good question! I think the reason why you're having a difficult time with this one, is that it's really easy to get turned around on your task. On my first read through, I didn't see it either.

Your understanding of the argument core is right on.

Conclusion
Trial by jury is not a fair means of settling disputes involving technical issues.

Evidence
People who have specialized knowledge about a technical issue are systematically excluded from juries.

We're asked to undermine the conclusion that the jury trial is not fair. An easier way to think about this, is too look for an answer choice that supports the idea that excluding these people with specialized knowledge is fair. Answer choice (B) says that these people that are being excluded are likely to be prejudiced. If we exclude prejudiced people, that would support the idea that the jury trial is fair, and would weaken the idea that the jury trial is not fair.

(A) supports the conclusion that the jury trial is not fair. This answer choice tells us why we would want to include these people with specialized knowledge. But they're being excluded - that's a problem.
(C) is out of scope. We want to weaken the the conclusion that excluding people with specialized knowledge is not fair. This answer choice is about arbitration!
(D) is irrelevant. This answer choice doesn't tell us whether people with specialized knowledge would be biased or not.
(E) is irrelevant. This answer choice is not about people with specialized knowledge serving on juries but rather about them serving as expert witnesses.

I hope this helps clear this one up! If you could still use a bit more help with it, let me know. I'd be happy to help...

[LSAT-Chang]

Hey Matt,
Could you help me figure out why (D) is wrong? I read the description you provided above but didn't feel 100% satisfied...

This was my thought process:

Okay, so basically the author is saying that trial by jury is not fair because they exclude people who have specialized knowledge in cases where that issue is relevant. so maybe I could show that it is actually fair to have these people excluded.

So (B) clearly does that (I eliminated (B) at first because I forgot that I was trying to weaken the argument), but how about (D)? I think I picked (D) because if experts discuss the possibility of error of their testimony, then they aren't really biased so it would be fair. OHHHH wait.. that would actually strengthen it then, right? Since that would give more evidence to HAVE the experts testify and it would support the conclusion that it isn't fair without them.. right? These opposite answers are so darn attractive!

Please let me know if this makes sense..

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I think you're real close So! I'm not sure that experts hedging their positions by discussing the possibility of error though would suggest that technical experts serving on juries would increase the fairness.

The reason is, what is so technical about discussing the possibility of error. Maybe if the experts who provide testimony presented the information in a complicated way, but as answer choice (D) is stated, I cannot determine that the information presented by the experts who provide testimony would be difficult to understand.

So, if answer choice (D) was saying that it would be difficult to understand the experts, then "yes," this would strengthen the argument. But I'm not sure that it's saying that it would be difficult to understand the experts.

Make sense?

[LSAT-Chang]

I think you're real close So! I'm not sure that experts hedging their positions by discussing the possibility of error though would suggest that technical experts serving on juries would increase the fairness.

The reason is, what is so technical about discussing the possibility of error. Maybe if the experts who provide testimony presented the information in a complicated way, but as answer choice (D) is stated, I cannot determine that the information presented by the experts who provide testimony would be difficult to understand.

So, if answer choice (D) was saying that it would be difficult to understand the experts, then "yes," this would strengthen the argument. But I'm not sure that it's saying that it would be difficult to understand the experts.

Make sense?

Hmm.. where did you get the "difficult to understand the experts" from? Let me rephrase what I mean by (D) in three sentences (just to keep it simple -- since I am not quite following your logic here). So if the experts discuss the possibility of error - then we could "say" that they are not 100% biased since they still claim that their statement could be flawed basically. And so I would think that it would weaken the argument since the author is concluding that trial by jury is not fair, but if these juries are discussing the possibility of error - I would think that in fact, they may be "fair". Thus, it is NOT the case that trial by jury is not fair, so it can be weakened.. I mean I see now that (B) is a much better answer than (D) but I still feel like (D) is a weakener as well.. or am I incorporating my own assumption that "if someone discusses a possibility of error of their conclusion then they are NOT not fair"?

Or maybe the word "hedge" is the key to answer (D).. I just looked it up on dictionary.. since if these experts are discussing the possibility of error just to "hedge" their conclusion, then it probably would not weaken the argument since it would lend support to the author's conclusion that trial by jury with these experts wouldn't be very fair after all? since they are just providing that error alternative just to hedge their conclusion??

Does my point make sense?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I think I see your point. If the jury members are discussing the possibility of error on the part of experts, that should increase the fairness of the jury trial, right? Which would weaken the argument that jury trials are not fair.

I think the problem there is that you're only looking at the conclusion. The question stem asks us to weaken the argument. Sometimes it will ask us to weaken the reasoning. And others it will ask us to weaken the conclusion. In the last case, you can focus your attention exclusively at the conclusion, but otherwise you need to address the gap between the evidence and the conclusion.

The issue with answer choice (D) is that it sidesteps the evidence that technical experts are excluded from serving on juries in cases that have related technical issues. To weaken the argument and say that this practice is fair, we really want an answer that relates why this practice might increase the fairness of a jury - answer choice (B) accomplishes this.

Answer choice (D) doesn't relate to the evidence - does that make sense?

[LSAT-Chang]

I think I see your point. If the jury members are discussing the possibility of error on the part of experts, that should increase the fairness of the jury trial, right? Which would weaken the argument that jury trials are not fair.

YES! That is exactly my point.

I think the problem there is that you're only looking at the conclusion. The question stem asks us to weaken the argument. Sometimes it will ask us to weaken the reasoning. And others it will ask us to weaken the conclusion. In the last case, you can focus your attention exclusively at the conclusion, but otherwise you need to address the gap between the evidence and the conclusion.

Gotcha.. I didn't even notice that they played with those words, since once I read the word "weaken" I would immediately go back and start figuring out the core, but so you are saying that I should also read into what I want to weaken for a particular question? I mean the process is still the same right? Looking for conclusion, support, gap and addressing the gap? So if a question asks to weaken conclusion, I should focus on the conclusion more, and if it asks to weaken the argument or reasoning, I should take the premise into account as well? Please correct me if I am wrong.

The issue with answer choice (D) is that it sidesteps the evidence that technical experts are excluded from serving on juries in cases that have related technical issues. To weaken the argument and say that this practice is fair, we really want an answer that relates why this practice might increase the fairness of a jury - answer choice (B) accomplishes this.

Answer choice (D) doesn't relate to the evidence - does that make sense?

That makes perfect sense! Whereas (B) links the premise and conclusion, (D) just suggests that the conclusion might be wrong (and uses irrelevant evidence to support this, right?) This leads me to another question.. you know how for weaken/strengthen, we shouldn't eliminate answers just because they are "new" information? Since a lot of the answer choices will contain "new" out-of-scope seeming answers. So with this one, if you say specifically that (D) doesn't relate to the evidence - you are not saying that this is "new" information but just that it doesn't relate to the evidence right?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I mean the process is still the same right? Looking for conclusion, support, gap and addressing the gap? So if a question asks to weaken conclusion, I should focus on the conclusion more, and if it asks to weaken the argument or reasoning, I should take the premise into account as well? Please correct me if I am wrong.

That is the process. And answer choice (D) doesn't address the gap, but rather goes straight to the conclusion.

This leads me to another question.. you know how for weaken/strengthen, we shouldn't eliminate answers just because they are "new" information? Since a lot of the answer choices will contain "new" out-of-scope seeming answers. So with this one, if you say specifically that (D) doesn't relate to the evidence - you are not saying that this is "new" information but just that it doesn't relate to the evidence right?

Correct, I'm just saying that it doesn't represent a gap in the reasoning between the evidence and the conclusion - not that it's out of scope.

[LSAT-Chang]

I mean the process is still the same right? Looking for conclusion, support, gap and addressing the gap? So if a question asks to weaken conclusion, I should focus on the conclusion more, and if it asks to weaken the argument or reasoning, I should take the premise into account as well? Please correct me if I am wrong.

That is the process. And answer choice (D) doesn't address the gap, but rather goes straight to the conclusion.

This leads me to another question.. you know how for weaken/strengthen, we shouldn't eliminate answers just because they are "new" information? Since a lot of the answer choices will contain "new" out-of-scope seeming answers. So with this one, if you say specifically that (D) doesn't relate to the evidence - you are not saying that this is "new" information but just that it doesn't relate to the evidence right?

Correct, I'm just saying that it doesn't represent a gap in the reasoning between the evidence and the conclusion - not that it's out of scope.

Thanks Matt!

[doug.feng]

Could we conclude that C, D, E and wrong because they have to do with "arbitrators" and "expert witnesses," instead of people who make up juries for trials?

[jouglay]

Sorry but I'm still confused about why B is the correct answer. Aren't we overreaching? Answer B just reaffirms the fact that a trial would be biased and is thus unfair. And by assuming that the juror being biased before the trial begins would lead to them being excluded, doesn't that kind of just add more steps than necessary for this answer? Does that make sense.....?

It seems as if answer A is more likely to weaken the argument - if the juror is knowledgeable on the subject, then they could provide unbiased understanding of the testimony, and thus ensure a truly fair trial. Am I wrong?

[ohthatpatrick]

Prem: people with expertise are excluded from jury
Conc: the trial is not fair

Assumption: the trial would be more fair, if the people with expertise were on the jury.

(B) blows up that assumption. No it wouldn't, Author. The trial would be LESS fair, if people with expertise were on the jury.

Remember, the author WANTS people with expertise on the jury.

(A) strengthens his point of view.
(B) weakens.

Hope this helps.