It is currently 20 Oct 2017, 15:09

### 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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# The miscarriage of justice in the Barker case was due to the

Author Message
Director
Joined: 14 Jul 2004
Posts: 698

Kudos [?]: 58 [0], given: 0

The miscarriage of justice in the Barker case was due to the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 May 2005, 18:43
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

The miscarriage of justice in the Barker case was due to the mistaken views held by some of the forensic scientists involved in the case, who believed that they owed allegiance only to the prosecuting lawyers. Justice was thwarted because these forensic scientists failed to provide evidence impartially to both the defense and the prosecution. Hence it is not forensic science in general that should be condemned for this injustice.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

A) Most forensic scientists acknowledge a professional obligation to provide evidence impartially to both the defense and the prosecution

B) The type of injustice that occurred in the Barker case has occurred in other cases as well

C) Most prosecuting lawyers believe that forensic scientists owe a special allegiance to the prosecution

D) Many instances of injustice in court cases are not of the same type as that which occurred in the Barker case.

E) Many forensic scientists do not beleive that any miscarriage of justice occurred in the Barker Case.

Kudos [?]: 58 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 25 Nov 2004
Posts: 1481

Kudos [?]: 126 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

24 May 2005, 20:46
C.

Kudos [?]: 126 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Posts: 330

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 12

### Show Tags

25 May 2005, 04:14
A

Need to strengthem the following representation
Forensic scientists to Forensic Science

Justice was thwarted because the forensic scientists failed to provide evidence impartially to both the defense and the prosecution. The assumption here - they had forensic evidence and they were supposed to provide evidence impartially. Hence the author states that the science in general shud not be blamed becos the scientists were at fault.

A reinforces this assumption.

GA

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 12

VP
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 1480

Kudos [?]: 411 [0], given: 0

Location: Germany

### Show Tags

25 May 2005, 04:45
A)...the author concluded that not forensic science in general should be condemned, but the 2 scientists that appeared in court. how can we strengthen that ? we have to show that usually forensic scientists are neutral. that is A).
_________________

If your mind can conceive it and your heart can believe it, have faith that you can achieve it.

Kudos [?]: 411 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 12 Jul 2003
Posts: 198

Kudos [?]: 88 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

26 May 2005, 10:47
A for me too for the same reasons given above.

Best.

Kudos [?]: 88 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Apr 2005
Posts: 372

Kudos [?]: 30 [0], given: 0

Location: India

### Show Tags

26 May 2005, 11:23
doloris wrote:
A for me too for the same reasons given above.

Best.

I too vote for A.

Althought,it strengthens only slightly.(but the others come a cropper).

HMTG.

Kudos [?]: 30 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Apr 2005
Posts: 372

Kudos [?]: 30 [0], given: 0

Location: India

### Show Tags

26 May 2005, 11:27
gandy_achar wrote:
A

Need to strengthem the following representation
Forensic scientists to Forensic Science

Justice was thwarted because the forensic scientists failed to provide evidence impartially to both the defense and the prosecution. The assumption here - they had forensic evidence and they were supposed to provide evidence impartially. Hence the author states that the science in general shud not be blamed becos the scientists were at fault.

A reinforces this assumption.

GA

But acknowledging is not the same as acting.
You can acknowledge moral probity while still being partial, in which case the case against the scientists doesn't get any milder.

HMTG.

Kudos [?]: 30 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Nov 2004
Posts: 453

Kudos [?]: 126 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

26 May 2005, 11:40
A. the lesser evil of 5 choices.

Kudos [?]: 126 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 14 Jul 2004
Posts: 698

Kudos [?]: 58 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

02 Jun 2005, 11:28
OA is A.

Kudos [?]: 58 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 270

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 0

Location: Auckland, New Zealand

### Show Tags

02 Jun 2005, 18:22
i would pick A as the conclusion talks about 'Forensic Science' as a whole and that it shouldn't be blamed...which means that a large proportion of forensic scientists don't do the same thing that the scientists in this case did

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 0

02 Jun 2005, 18:22
Display posts from previous: Sort by