Weaken
Premise: [In DNA fingerprinting,] there's independence between different characteristics represented by a single pattern
Conclusion: Proponents have claimed astronomically high odds against obtaining a match by chance alone
My thoughts (narrowed it down to B and C; ultimately chose B)
B- if a generally accepted theory of the interpretation of patterns exists, then wouldn't that mean that a guessed match is possible?
C - if certain characteristics are shared, then a match is possible
Can anyone assist?
(80)
LSAT Forum
2 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- rsmorale
-
Thanks Received: 3
-
Jackie Chiles
- Posts: 37
- Joined: February 20th, 2011
- Most Thankful
-
- maryadkins
-
Thanks Received: 641
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 1261
- Joined: March 23rd, 2011
- This post thanked 1 time.
Re: Q23 - “DNA fingerprinting†is a recently-introduced
This is a weaken question, exactly. Nice identifying the core.
We want an answer choice that gives a reason why the assumption that "independence between different characteristics" in a single pattern does NOT mean it's unlikely to get a match by mere chance. If this seems too complicated, we can just think of it as: we want a reason why the DNA of a suspect and the DNA found at a crime scene could match up due to chance, not because it's the actual culprit's DNA. (C) offers the possibility that people in subgroups share the same genetic characteristics that show up in the patterns.
(A) perhaps strengthens the argument. If we're worried about seeing patterns because we all largely have the same genes, (A) eliminates this possibility.
(B) is out of scope. We aren't concerned with theories of interpretation but the odds of a mistake. If anything, (B) may actually strengthen the argument--we're all pretty confident in the best way of interpreting, so if there's a mistaken match, we'll catch it!
(D) the skill required is not extraordinary? That's good, that means they can be low skilled and still do the job! Regardless, this is out of scope. It doesn't address the link between the patterns and the accuracy.
(E) is irrelevant. Great, they've helped with disease research. What does this have to do with odds?
We want an answer choice that gives a reason why the assumption that "independence between different characteristics" in a single pattern does NOT mean it's unlikely to get a match by mere chance. If this seems too complicated, we can just think of it as: we want a reason why the DNA of a suspect and the DNA found at a crime scene could match up due to chance, not because it's the actual culprit's DNA. (C) offers the possibility that people in subgroups share the same genetic characteristics that show up in the patterns.
(A) perhaps strengthens the argument. If we're worried about seeing patterns because we all largely have the same genes, (A) eliminates this possibility.
(B) is out of scope. We aren't concerned with theories of interpretation but the odds of a mistake. If anything, (B) may actually strengthen the argument--we're all pretty confident in the best way of interpreting, so if there's a mistaken match, we'll catch it!
(D) the skill required is not extraordinary? That's good, that means they can be low skilled and still do the job! Regardless, this is out of scope. It doesn't address the link between the patterns and the accuracy.
(E) is irrelevant. Great, they've helped with disease research. What does this have to do with odds?
2 posts Page 1 of 1