People who have specialized knowledge about a scientific or technical

Question

People who have specialized knowledge about a scientific or technical issue are systematically excluded from juries for trials where the issue is relevant. Thus, trial by jury is not a fair means of settling disputes involving such issues.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

(A) The more complicated the issue being litigated, the less likely it is that a juror without specialized knowledge of the field involved will be able to comprehend the testimony being given.

(B) The more a juror knows about a particular scientific or technical issue involved in a trial, the more likely it is that the juror will be prejudiced in favor of one of the litigating parties before the trial begins.
 
(C) Appointing an impartial arbitrator is not a fair means of settling disputes involving scientific or technical issues, because arbitrators tend to favor settlements in which both parties compromise on the issues.

(D) Experts who give testimony on scientific or technical issues tend to hedge their conclusions by discussing the possibility of error.

(E) Expert witnesses in specialized fields often command fees that are so high that many people involved in litigation cannot afford their services.

Source : PowerScore
Source : LSAT PrepTest42 Q20

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

The first sentence is a premise, and the second sentence is the conclusion of this argument. To attack this conclusion, look for an answer choice that shows that the exclusion of knowledgeable individuals from scientific or technical issue trials is a fair way of proceeding in these trials.

Answer choice (A): This is an Opposite answer that strengthens the conclusion. If specialized knowledge of these issues makes it more likely that the juror can comprehend the testimony being given, then these individuals should not be excluded from juries, and their exclusion makes trial by jury an unfair means of resolving a dispute.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer.  If the specialized knowledge is likely to produce a prejudice in a juror, then by all means they should be excluded from the jury. Thus, instead of trial by jury being an unfair means, it is made more fair by the exclusion of these individuals. The answer is a tricky one because most people initially think the answer agrees with the argument. It agrees with the principle of the premise, but not with the conclusion drawn from that premise.

Answer choice (C): This answer simply notes that arbitrators are not a fair means of settling scientific or technical issue debates. This has no impact on the fairness of jury trials involving these same issues.

Answer choice (D): This answer is about the experts testifying at scientific or technical issue trials. This information does not attack the claim that jury trials are unfair because of the exclusion of jurors with knowledge of these issues.

Answer choice (E): This answer can be eliminated by reasoning similar to that used to eliminate answer choice (D).

Kurtosis · Answer

Question Type: Weaken

Specialized knowledge people --> Excluded --> Decision not fair
Assumption: Specialized knowledge people can make correct decisions

(A) The more complicated the issue being litigated, the less likely it is that a juror without specialized knowledge of the field involved will be able to comprehend the testimony being given. - Incorrect. Opposite.

(B) The more a juror knows about a particular scientific or technical issue involved in a trial, the more likely it is that the juror will be prejudiced in favor of one of the litigating parties before the trial begins. - Correct. This option conveys that the people with specialized knowledge will make biased decisions.

(C) Appointing an impartial arbitrator is not a fair means of settling disputes involving scientific or technical issues, because arbitrators tend to favor settlements in which both parties compromise on the issues. - Incorrect. Opposite.

(D) Experts who give testimony on scientific or technical issues tend to hedge their conclusions by discussing the possibility of error. - Incorrect. We do not know whether this will lead to a fair result or unfair result.

(E) Expert witnesses in specialized fields often command fees that are so high that many people involved in litigation cannot afford their services. - Incorrect. Out of scope.

Answer: B

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

simplify the argument -

People who have specialized knowledge are excluded from juries ---> trial by jury is not a fair means of settling disputes.

We have been asked to weaken this. One possible weakener would point out that excluding such people leads to fair trials.

let us take a look at the answer options -

Option A - Incorrect.
this weakens the argument. It suggests that there is a high likelihood that in such cases a trial involving jury without experts is not a fair trial.

Option B - Correct Answer.
this suggests why having experts will not lead to a fair trial.

Option C - Incorrect.
this weakens the argument. It suggests that there is a high likelihood that in such cases a trial involving jury without experts is not a fair trial.

Option D - Incorrect.
this weakens the argument by stating a positive thing about appointing experts to the jury.

Option E - Incorrect.
Not relevant. We are not concerned about the expenses but about whether excluding such experts ensures a fair trial or not.

BillyZ · Answer

Weaken the Argument

Consider unexamined alternatives when weakening arguments.

To the author, a jury trial is unfair when the issue in question is particularly technical, because experts in such issues are routinely kept off the jury. But what if fairness is enhanced by knocking experts off? That’s what (B) proposes. Under (B)’s circumstances, the jury trial is fairer because the exclusion policy reduces bias.

(A) 180. This is an argument for having expertise on the jury so as to make the deliberations clearer, and hence more fair.

(C) This one wants you to think that if arbitration is unfair, that makes jury trial fairer. But arbitration is totally outside the scope.

(D),(E) The quality or expertise of witnesses is also far outside the scope of whether expertise should be allowed in the jury room.

jaisonsunny77 · Answer

Type: Weaken the conclusion. 
 
Conclusion: trial by jury is not a fair means of settling disputes involving such issues.
 
(A) The more complicated the issue being litigated, the less likely it is that a juror without specialized knowledge of the field involved will be able to comprehend the testimony being given.  -  this advocates for the conclusion, not weaken it. 
 
(B) The more a juror knows about a particular scientific or technical issue involved in a trial, the more likely it is that the juror will be prejudiced in favor of one of the litigating parties before the trial begins. - if the ''experts'' are known to be biased, then this realization would challenge the conclusion that jurors must include relevant subject matter experts. Hence, (B) weakens the conclusion. Therefore,    (B) is the right answer choice . 
   
(C) Appointing an impartial arbitrator is not a fair means of settling disputes involving scientific or technical issues, because arbitrators tend to favor settlements in which both parties compromise on the issues.  -  out of scope. 
  
(D) Experts who give testimony on scientific or technical issues tend to hedge their conclusions by discussing the possibility of error. -  irrelevant. 
  
(E) Expert witnesses in specialized fields often command fees that are so high that many people involved in litigation cannot afford their services.  -  irrelevant.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

People who have specialized knowledge about a scientific or technical

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

People who have specialized knowledge about a scientific or technical

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards