Civil trials often involve great complexities that are beyond the

The argument is that Judges would be better than jurors to serve justice in complex civil matters.
This is based on the fact that jurors frequently make incorrect decisions in trials that involve great complexities that are beyond the capacities of jurors to understand.

What must be true in order for the conclusion to be true?

A - It doesn't need to be a majority. We are simply told incorrect decisions are made 'frequently' and this should suffice as evidence for change. A just reinforces this evidence.
B - this is presumably true. It must be true actually. If the author defaults decision making back to judges then the author presupposes that the decision the judge makes is better made than jurors'
C - This is really irrelevant. Complex trials are complex trials. We don't know if evidence helps at all and its irrelevant anyway.
D - We already know the decisions are incorrect. This isn't assumed its stated. IC.
E - This may not be true. Presumably jurors will arrive at the correct conclusion, but is that the sole reason? What about bias? Multiple opinions can potentially eliminate bias?

The argument above depends on which of the following assumptions?

What if Justice is not served better even if complex trials are decided by judges rather than by Jurors.
Assumption - this will not happen. Judges are more able than jurors at complex trial.

(A) A majority of civil trials involve complexities that jurors are not capable of understanding.
This choice doesn't tell that Judges are capable of understanding civil trials that involve complexities

(B) The judges who would decide complex civil trials would be better able to understand the complexities of those trials than jurors are.
In line with our pre thinking. Judges are more able than Jurors at complex trials

(C) The judges who would preside over civil trials would disallow the most complex sorts of evidence from being introduced into those trials.
Why would they disallow the most complex sorts of evidence?
What if it is the most important sort of evidence?
Or does disallowing complex evidences make them better at solving complex trials ?
We don't know anything. THIS Choice certainly not helps.

(D) Jurors' decisions are frequently incorrect even in those civil trials that do not involve great complexities.
Okay. We knew that Jurors were not capable of understanding complex trials ;they are not even better at trials that do not involve great complexities.
However, this choice doesn't tell why Judges will be better at complex civil trials

(E) The sole reason in favor of having juries decide civil trials is the supposition that their decisions will almost always be correct.
Again. This doesn't tell why Judges will be better at complex civil trials. This choices rather weakens the argument.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.