Forum Home > GMAT > Quantitative > Problem Solving (PS)
Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Dec 1410:00 AM EST
-12:00 PM EST
Think a 100% GMAT Verbal score is out of your reach? Target Test Prep will make you think again! Our course uses techniques such as topical study and spaced repetition to maximize knowledge retention and make studying simple and fun.
Dec 1411:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this session to learn how to Deconstruct arguments, Pre-Think Author’s Assumptions, and apply Negation Test.- Dec 15
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Dec 1608:00 AM PST
-11:59 PM PST
GMAT Club 12 Days of Christmas is a 4th Annual GMAT Club Winter Competition based on solving questions. This is the Winter GMAT competition on GMAT Club with an amazing opportunity to win over $40,000 worth of prizes!- Dec 17
09:00 AM PST
-10:00 AM PST
Join Manhattan Prep instructor Whitney Garner for a fun—and thorough—review of logic-based (non-math) problems, with a particular emphasis on Data Sufficiency and Two-Parts. - Dec 18
10:00 AM PST
-11:00 AM PST
Here is the essential guide to securing scholarships as an MBA student! In this video, we explore the various types of scholarships available, including need-based and merit-based options.
patto
Joined: 22 Jun 2017
Last visit: 09 Jul 2021
Posts: 237
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 149
Location: Argentina
Schools: HBS '25 Wharton '25 Stanford '25
GMAT 1: 630 Q43 V34
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V36 (Online)
Products:
04 Mar 2019, 08:24
Kudos
Bookmarks
C
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
55%
(hard)
Question Stats:
61% (01:54) correct
39%
(02:03)
wrong
based on 379
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Court analyst: Courts should not allow the use of DNA tests in criminal cases. There exists considerable controversy among scientific experts about how reliable these tests are. Unless there is widespread agreement in the scientific community about how reliable a certain test is, it is unreasonable for the courts to allow evidence based on that test.
The court analyst’s reasoning is flawed because it fails to take into account that
(A) courts have the authority to admit or exclude any evidence irrespective of what experts have to say about its reliability
(B) the standard against which evidence in a criminal case is measured should not be absolute certainty
(C) experts may agree that the tests are highly reliable while disagreeing about exactly how reliable they are
(D) data should not be admitted as evidence in a court of law without scientific witnesses having agreed about how reliable they are
(E) there are also controversies about reliability of evidence in noncriminal cases
The court analyst’s reasoning is flawed because it fails to take into account that
(A) courts have the authority to admit or exclude any evidence irrespective of what experts have to say about its reliability
(B) the standard against which evidence in a criminal case is measured should not be absolute certainty
(C) experts may agree that the tests are highly reliable while disagreeing about exactly how reliable they are
(D) data should not be admitted as evidence in a court of law without scientific witnesses having agreed about how reliable they are
(E) there are also controversies about reliability of evidence in noncriminal cases
19 Mar 2019, 22:06
Kudos
Bookmarks
patto
Court analyst: Courts should not allow the use of DNA tests in criminal cases. There exists considerable controversy among scientific experts about how reliable these tests are. Unless there is widespread agreement in the scientific community about how reliable a certain test is, it is unreasonable for the courts to allow evidence based on that test.
The court analyst’s reasoning is flawed because it fails to take into account that
(A) courts have the authority to admit or exclude any evidence irrespective of what experts have to say about its reliability
(B) the standard against which evidence in a criminal case is measured should not be absolute certainty
(C) experts may agree that the tests are highly reliable while disagreeing about exactly how reliable they are
(D) data should not be admitted as evidence in a court of law without scientific witnesses having agreed about how reliable they are
(E) there are also controversies about reliability of evidence in noncriminal cases
The court analyst’s reasoning is flawed because it fails to take into account that
(A) courts have the authority to admit or exclude any evidence irrespective of what experts have to say about its reliability
(B) the standard against which evidence in a criminal case is measured should not be absolute certainty
(C) experts may agree that the tests are highly reliable while disagreeing about exactly how reliable they are
(D) data should not be admitted as evidence in a court of law without scientific witnesses having agreed about how reliable they are
(E) there are also controversies about reliability of evidence in noncriminal cases
There exists considerable controversy among scientific experts about how reliable these tests are. (the exact measurement of reliability is debatable)
Unless there is widespread agreement in the scientific community about how reliable a certain test is, it is unreasonable for the courts to allow evidence based on that test.
Hence, courts should not allow the use of DNA tests in criminal cases.
The argument fails to take into account:
(A) courts have the authority to admit or exclude any evidence irrespective of what experts have to say about its reliability
The courts HAVE the authority to admit or exclude evidence - the argument, in fact, does imply that since it asks the court to not admit DNA evidence. So it does not fail to consider that the courts have the authority to admit or exclude any evidence for whatever reasons.
The argument is just asking the court to exclude DNA evidence based on "controversy among experts".
(B) the standard against which evidence in a criminal case is measured should not be absolute certainty
The argument does not talk about the absolute certainty of DNA results. The point in question is degree of agreement on "how reliable the DNA tests are".
(C) experts may agree that the tests are highly reliable while disagreeing about exactly how reliable they are
Correct. Say the experts agree that the tests are more than 95% reliable. But some say they are 96% reliable but other say they are 98% reliable and there is considerable controversy on this. So the experts may agree that the tests are highly reliable but the exact measurement of reliability may be in question. The argument fails to consider that the experts may agree on the tests being highly reliable. This is a flaw in the argument.
(D) data should not be admitted as evidence in a court of law without scientific witnesses having agreed about how reliable they are
This is what the argument is trying to say too. Hence it does not fail to consider this.
(E) there are also controversies about reliability of evidence in noncriminal cases
Non criminal cases are out of scope.
Answer (C)
General Discussion
14 Aug 2019, 14:08
Kudos
Bookmarks
I am not able to eliminate option D.
I am confused between C & D.
data should not be admitted as evidence in a court of law without scientific witnesses having agreed about how reliable they are:
We have been asked for a flaw in the reasoning.
and option D says we can do tests but will decide on reliability later.
Please clarify.
I am confused between C & D.
data should not be admitted as evidence in a court of law without scientific witnesses having agreed about how reliable they are:
We have been asked for a flaw in the reasoning.
and option D says we can do tests but will decide on reliability later.
Please clarify.
