Q12 - Experts hired to testify

[LSAT-Chang]

I didn't understand this problem, and just chose (C) and moved on. I don't really get why (A) is the correct answer.

This was my thought-process:

So since this is a principle example question, no need to look for the core. The principle that I extracted from the argument was something like: experts are chosen/picked on their persuasiveness.

Honestly, I thought all the answer choices were attractive but (A)!

So with (A), I thought it was missing the major point: someone is chosen over someone else. It just says successful politicians are not always the ones who best undersatnd how to help their country. and the whole next part about "some lack insight...election campaign" didn't sound like anything similar to the main argument. Or is "chosen" not what is important???

Now that I look at (C)... the part "despite the fact that an audience may be more affected by..." is going against the evidence, right? Since the main argument is saying that experts need to know how to make convincing presentations since they are evaluated by JURIES -- so it is important to take into consideratino the juries (audience) part, whereas (C) says the opera singer with the best voice is chosen even if the audience may be more affected by someone else.

I'm just very confused.. What would you say the general principle is just looking at the argument anyway???? I don't know how "general" or "narrow" I need to extract the principle from the argument.

[timmydoeslsat]

You were very close to getting this problem right, I think you did not understand the implications of what A has in it as a correct answer choice.

The stimulus can be broken down like this:

- Experts need to know how to make convincing presentations.

- They are evaluated by juries in how confident and clearly they show how they arrived at their conclusions.

Therefore, as a consequence of those two premises, there are situations where less expert authorities that are asked to testify than highly knowledgeable experts that are less persuasive.

The principle that can be extracted from this stimulus is that the most knowledgeable/skilled person is not always selected, rather it may be the one that can be more persuasive.

Answer choices:

A) You were so close here! It was like I was watching a horror movie where the villain is creeping behind the person!

This answer choice does have a factor of choice. Successful politicians can be seen as those that are good at CAMPAIGNING (aka persuading) and they are not always the ones the most knowledgeable to help the country.

This shows that people can be chosen for a persuasion factor.

B) No distinction of different qualities forming the basis for a choice.

C) I agree with you. I would say this is the opposite of what we want. We do not want the person with the most skill to be chosen, we want that persuasion factor.

D) Eliminate for same reason as B.

E) Does not imply that this person is being CHOSEN OVER somebody else. Perhaps they most skilled are chosen, then this person is too.

[LSAT-Chang]

The principle that can be extracted from this stimulus is that the most knowledgeable/skilled person is not always selected, rather it may be the one that can be more persuasive.

Answer choices:

A) You were so close here! It was like I was watching a horror movie where the villain is creeping behind the person!

This answer choice does have a factor of choice. Successful politicians can be seen as those that are good at CAMPAIGNING (aka persuading) and they are not always the ones the most knowledgeable to help the country.

This shows that people can be chosen for a persuasion factor.

Thanks for the great explanation.. but I am still not 100% convinced. So are you saying that the "politician" being chosen is implied?? Because I saw no indication of one being chosen over the other -- it just says like you mentioned, "one is good at campaigning but may not always be the one most knowledgeable to help the country" -- so what? we have the facts, but where is the part about "so that person is chosen over the other person"? Or are you saying that the fact about them being "successful politicians" means that they are chosen over those other less-successful ones????

[timmydoeslsat]

Thanks for the great explanation.. but I am still not 100% convinced. So are you saying that the "politician" being chosen is implied?? Because I saw no indication of one being chosen over the other -- it just says like you mentioned, "one is good at campaigning but may not always be the one most knowledgeable to help the country" -- so what? we have the facts, but where is the part about "so that person is chosen over the other person"? Or are you saying that the fact about them being "successful politicians" means that they are chosen over those other less-successful ones????

You can view it in this way:

Successful politicians are not always the ones who best understand how to help the nation. Well, why are they not?

Why isn't the person who best understands how to help the country a successful politician?

There are other factors to consider! A politician may be able to run a campaign better than the grand wizard of public policy who knows issues backwards and forwards.

[LSAT-Chang]

You can view it in this way:

Successful politicians are not always the ones who best understand how to help the nation. Well, why are they not?

Why isn't the person who best understands how to help the country a successful politician?

There are other factors to consider! A politician may be able to run a campaign better than the grand wizard of public policy who knows issues backwards and forwards.

I'm sorry to keep bothering you, but last question.. so are you saying that the "best understands" can be equivalent to "chosen"? I guess I'm just looking for the concept/word of being CHOSEN -- and my point was just that I didn't see it here and was asking whether it is implied. So is it being implied by having the word "best understand"? Maybe I'm not phrasing my question correctly...

[timmydoeslsat]

Haha, you are not bothering me at all! Ask me all the questions you want! I also like to capitalize important points, it is not meant to be viewed as

I would say that there is a chosen factor. The chosen factor can be seen from the fact that IT IS NOT THE CASE that the person who best understands how to help the country is not a successful politician.

I agree with you that there is ambiguity with what defines a successful politician. Is it campaign victories? Fundraising? Name recognition? No matter what defines success for a politician, there is a sense of choice living here. For some reason, the person that best understands how to help the country is not always a successful politician.

That means there must be some other factor at the heart of what is holding them back from being one. It mirrors the stimulus in that there are other factors that separate a person from obtaining something even if they are the best at something.

Please do tell me if you would like to go over this more.

[LSAT-Chang]

NOW i see it!!! Thanks so much -- no further questions!! =)

[olaizola.mariana]

I got this question wrong, but I think for a different reason. When I broke down the original statement, I determined that the first sentence ("Experts hired to testify in court need to know how to make convincing presentations") was the conclusion or main argument from which the principle should be extracted. I found that "need to know" was an important component which made the sentence normative (rather than just descriptive). The author of the statement was staying that experts SHOULD know how to make convincing presentations.

Since answer (C) was the only one with a normative statement ("appropriate choice"), I thought this argument was correct. For me, the principle that needed to be matched was: true experts/professionals should be considered the best candidates for a role, even though their lack of confidence may make them the less obvious choice.

Why is this not a valid way to approach this question? Thanks so much in advance.

[ohthatpatrick]

Good question.

Even though "need to know" does sound normative (and thus maybe opinionated), you can see the oft-used conclusion trigger "As a result" showing us the conclusion.

That last sentence is based on the 1st two sentences. So while you could say that the the first sentence is an intermediate conclusion, it still serves to support the final sentence.

S2 -> S1 -> S3
Experts are evaluated by jury based on ability to be clear and confident presenters. Thus, experts need to know how to make convincing presentations.
Thus, sometimes we pick people that are less of an expert but better at presenting.

Also, you correctly identified the idea that "the person we select needs to know how to give a good presentation".

But then you undermined that idea by "For me, the principle that needed to be matched was: true experts/professionals should be considered the best candidates for a role, even though their lack of confidence may make them the less obvious choice. "

That's the opposite of what the 1st sentence is saying.

You're making it seem like the 1st sentence says that they NEED the expertise, but the whole point of the paragraph is that STYLE is more important than SUBSTANCE.

[olaizola.mariana]

Thanks so much for explaining.

The progression you set out here (which parallels the original argument) seems to me very strange, though. Even with the "as a result" trigger, I find S3 to be more of a descriptive, intermediate observation. Perhaps I am trying to re-invent the argument, but it would make much more sense to me to say:

1) Experts are evaluated by jury based on ability to be clear and confident presenters.
2) Thus, sometimes we pick people that are less of an expert but better at presenting.
3) Thus, experts [the real ones!] need to know how to make convincing presentations.

The principle would then be: Real experts [not the "less expert authorities"] need to learn to be convincing so they can get selected to testify.

When finding the argument core, I am often conflicted as to whether the order and typical trigger phrases should be the main clues or whether I should rely on my own sense of logic. I think I got this question wrong because I followed the latter approach.

[redskateboard]

When I read this stimulus I saw a different principle than others in this thread see. The principle I saw is something like:

Sometimes there are two skills to consider when picking someone for a task and sometimes it makes sense to choose greater proficiency in one skill at the expense of the other skill.

I still think this is a defensible version of the principle illustrated. I also agree that "chose presentation skills over content knowledge" is acceptable.

I chose C based on my interpretation over A. How should I have done this question to get the right answer?

[jwms]

When I read this stimulus I saw a different principle than others in this thread see. The principle I saw is something like:

Sometimes there are two skills to consider when picking someone for a task and sometimes it makes sense to choose greater proficiency in one skill at the expense of the other skill.

I still think this is a defensible version of the principle illustrated. I also agree that "chose presentation skills over content knowledge" is acceptable.

I chose C based on my interpretation over A. How should I have done this question to get the right answer?

I think the problem with (C) is its interaction with the audience (juries). (C) says the opposite of what the stimulus says.

The stimulus says: cater to the jury, essentially.
(C) says: go with substance, regardless of the audience's wishes!

If (C) said: opera singers can have two attributes: best voice or most dramatic. Best voice is objectively great, but most dramatic can move the audience. As a result, opera houses often employ singers who are more dramatic rather than the best singers.

Does that make sense?