akanshaxo wrote:
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
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.