When expert witnesses give testimony, jurors often do not understand

Question

When expert witnesses give testimony, jurors often do not understand the technical information and thereby are in no position to evaluate such testimony. Although expert witnesses on opposite sides often make conflicting claims, the expert witnesses on both sides frequently seem competent, leaving the jury unable to assess the reliability of their testimonies.

The statements above, if true, most strongly support which one of the following?

(A) There should be limits placed on how much technical information can be considered by both sides in preparing a legal case.

(B) Jury decisions in cases involving expert witness testimonies are not always determined by the reliability of those testimonies.

(C) Jurors who understand the technical information presented in a case can usually assess its legal implications accurately.

(D) Jury members should generally be selected on the basis of their technical expertise.

(E) Expert witnesses who testify on opposite sides in legal cases are likely to agree in their evaluations of technical claims

kumarankit01 · Answer

Answer is B .

A. Argument does not talk about the legal case . 
B. It follows from the Argument.
C. Argument talks about testimonies , the option C talks about the case .

D.Out of context 
E. Argument is about Jury assessing the testimonies.

Award kudos if helpful

Posted from my mobile device

eabhgoy · Answer

From the argument, we have the following information:
1) Jurors do not understand technical info
2) Expert witnesses on either side make opposite claims and since they are competent jurors believe them.
3) Jury gets confused and is unable to asses the reliability of the testimonies.

Now we need to see which of the following will be supported by the information provided in the argument:

(A) There should be limits placed on how much technical information can be considered by both sides in preparing a legal case.
Not relevant, no discussion on how the process needs to be changed.

(B) Jury decisions in cases involving expert witness testimonies are not always determined by the reliability of those testimonies.
Correct, mentioned in the last part of the passage.

(C) Jurors who understand the technical information presented in a case can usually assess its legal implications accurately.
Some people may get confused with this one. But we are just told that people who don't have knowledge cant understand the expert witnesses. We don't know if people with technical knowledge will be able to understand the  legal implications ! Technical people can understand the technical part but can they understand the legal part? Not so sure. Incorrect.

(D) Jury members should generally be selected on the basis of their technical expertise.
Not relevant, no discussion on how the process needs to be changed.

(E) Expert witnesses who testify on opposite sides in legal cases are likely to agree in their evaluations of technical claims
It says the opposite in the passage (conflicting claims).

Hence the B is the correct answer.

siddharthfrancis · Answer

How is b supporting the argument. Please explain.

KarishmaB · Answer

Jurors often do not understand the technical information of experts so are in no position to evaluate their testimonies. 
Expert witnesses on opposite sides often make conflicting claims, but seem competent.
So the jury is unable to assess the reliability of their testimonies.

We are looking for an inference i.e. which option is supported by the argument?

(A) There should be limits placed on how much technical information can be considered by both sides in preparing a legal case.

The argument does not imply this. It just says that jurors are unable to understand technicals. It doesn't mean that there should be limits placed on technicals.

(B) Jury decisions in cases involving expert witness testimonies are not always determined by the reliability of those testimonies.

Correct. We know that jurors are not able to understand technicals and hence cannot evaluate testimonies. The argument also tells us that the jury is unable to access the reliability of their testimonies. Hence the jurors' decision would often not be determined by the reliability of expert testimonies (since they are unable to assess the reliability).

(C) Jurors who understand the technical information presented in a case can usually assess its legal implications accurately.

Not given. No mention about jurors who understand tech info and legal implications.

(D) Jury members should generally be selected on the basis of their technical expertise.

Not implied. All that the argument says is what generally happens. It doesn't say what "should" happen.

(E) Expert witnesses who testify on opposite sides in legal cases are likely to agree in their evaluations of technical claims

The argument says that they usually make conflicting claims.

Answer (B)

unraveled · Answer

When expert witnesses give testimony, jurors often do not understand the technical information and thereby are in no position to evaluate such testimony. Although expert witnesses on opposite sides often make conflicting claims, the expert witnesses on both sides frequently seem competent,  leaving the jury unable to assess the reliability of their testimonies .

The statements above, if true, most strongly support which one of the following?

(A) There  should be limits placed on how much technical information can be considered  by both sides in preparing a legal case. - WRONG. Possible solution but not an inference.

(B) Jury decisions in cases involving expert witness testimonies  are not always determined by the reliability of those testimonies . - CORRECT. Goes along with the highlighted text.

(C)  Jurors who understand the technical information presented in a case can usually assess  its legal implications accurately. - WRONG. Those capable of understanding is another set of jury which is beyond the cope of passage. Additionally, reverse can go either way.

(D) Jury members  should generally be selected on the basis  of their technical expertise. - WRONG. Selection of jury is out of scope.

(E) Expert witnesses who testify on opposite sides in legal cases are  likely to agree in their evaluations of technical claims  - WRONG. Irrelevant to the passage as it is out of scope.

Answer B.

Vaishali2004 · Answer

KarishmaB  @GMATninja- In option B, is it too much to assume that the jury will take help to understand the technicalities and then make a decision?

KarishmaB · Answer

The jury has to evaluate the case based on the data provided to it. 
Think about it - when both sides present expert witnesses with conflicting testimonies, from where will the juror get help? The experts are the ones who can help but two competent looking experts are presenting conflicting data. So the jurors cannot judge the reliability of their claims. Hence their verdict will be based on other parameters.

Paras96 · Answer

The statements in the passage support option:

(B) Jury decisions in cases involving expert witness testimonies are not always determined by the reliability of those testimonies.

The passage explains that jurors often lack the technical understanding to evaluate expert testimony. Even when expert witnesses on opposing sides present conflicting claims, they often appear competent to the jurors, which can lead to a situation where the jury is unable to assess the reliability of these testimonies. This implies that factors beyond the technical reliability of the testimonies can influence jury decisions. Option (B) accurately reflects this idea.

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.

When expert witnesses give testimony, jurors often do not understand

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

When expert witnesses give testimony, jurors often do not understand

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