jaisonsunny77 wrote:
Type: Find the assumption
Conclusion: police officers are advised to disallow suspect lineups in which witnesses can hear one another identifying suspects.
Supporting premises: A change in the witnesses' confidence has little or no correlation with the accuracy of the eyewitness account.
In other words, we need to find a reason why the police officers were given that piece of advice.
A. The confidence people have in what they remember having seen is affected by their awareness of what other people claim to have seen. - what (A) essentially implies is that ''external influence'' affects the confidence of the witnesses over the ''accuracy'' of their own accounts. This helps explain why the officers were advised to discontinue suspect lineups in which eye witnesses could hear one another (i.e. expose themselves to ''external influence'') as they identified a suspect. Therefore, (A) is the right answer choice.
B. Unless an eyewitness is confronted with more than one suspect at a time, the accuracy of his or her statements cannot be trusted. - out of scope.
C. If several eyewitnesses all identify the same suspect in a lineup, it is more likely that the suspect committed the crime than if only one eyewitness identifies the suspect. - out of scope.
D. Police officers are more interested in the confidence witnesses have when testifying than in the accuracy of that testimony. - this is not implied in the passage in any way. Besides, (D) does not help us establish why one should regard the conclusion as true.
E. The accuracy of an eyewitness account is doubtful if the eyewitness contradicts what other eyewitnesses claim to have seen. - ''contradiction'' of statements is not considered (out of scope) in this passage.
Hi
jaisonsunny77,
Bunuel, I'm not clear why A is the correct answer choice.
The statement says "Certain factors can increase or undermine a witness's confidence without altering the accuracy of the identification". Isn't this supporting the fact that "external influence" does not have any relevance as it wouldn't compromise the accuracy of the outcome when eyewitnessing?
Thanks!