Q8 - Numerous studies suggest

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Question Type:
Evaluate

Stimulus Breakdown:
The legal theorists hypothesize that the reason jurors regard scientific evidence presented in a trial as more credible than they would if they encountered the same evidence outside of the courtroom is that judges prescreen the evidence and allow only credible evidence to be presented in the courtroom.

Answer Anticipation:
The structure of the argument conforms to a very common pattern. The conclusion offers an explanation for how or why a phenomenon occurs. Typically, we want to keep in mind that there are other possible explanations for how or why the phenomenon occured. In this case, however, the right answer doesn't address possible alternative explanations but rather a required condition for the provided explanation.

Correct Answer:
(A)

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) is correct. Without knowing that the judge has prescreened the scientific evidence, a juror wouldn't be able to give the scientific any additional merit compared with scientific evidence presented outside of a courtroom.

(B) is very tempting but ultimately too weak. This would not affect whether the primary influence is that judges prescreen the evidence presented.

(C) is out of scope. The credibility of an expert witness is too narrow to speak to the presentation of scientific evidence more generally.

(D) is too weak. Using one's own scientific knowledge when weighing scientific evidence would influence a jurors belief about that evidence both in a courtroom as well as outside the courtroom and so cannot explain the different attitudes held by people about scientific evidence presented within a courtroom versus outside a courtroom.

(E) is out of scope. Conflicting assessments of scientific evidence is not an issue in this argument.

Takeaway/Pattern: Reasoning Structure: Causation

#officialexplanation

[ahlee828]

Hi!
I chose C for this one.
The legal theorists hypothesize that,
the reason jurors regard scientific evidence to be more credible within a courtroom context, is due to the fact that judges prescreen the evidence to allow only credible ones to be presented.
At first, I didn't understanding how this explains the fact that the jurors regard the very same evidence to be less credible, once they leave the courtroom. I thought that since the question was asking to evaluate the hypothesis, the the answer may point out the gap left behind by the hypothesis. That's why I chose C, thinking to myself that if it was the ability of the expert witness that renders the evidence more credible, the legal theorists' hypothesis might not hold. Could someone help me clarify why this would be incorrect, and why A is the correct answer here? Thanks a lot!

[JorieB701]

Hi!
I chose C for this one.
The legal theorists hypothesize that,
the reason jurors regard scientific evidence to be more credible within a courtroom context, is due to the fact that judges prescreen the evidence to allow only credible ones to be presented.
At first, I didn't understanding how this explains the fact that the jurors regard the very same evidence to be less credible, once they leave the courtroom. I thought that since the question was asking to evaluate the hypothesis, the the answer may point out the gap left behind by the hypothesis. That's why I chose C, thinking to myself that if it was the ability of the expert witness that renders the evidence more credible, the legal theorists' hypothesis might not hold. Could someone help me clarify why this would be incorrect, and why A is the correct answer here? Thanks a lot!

I'm going to take a crack at this one because I had trouble as well.

I think C looks good at first but if you really read closely it kind of falls apart. From above, yea, it is incomplete since expert witnesses are really only one way a jury might be presented with scientific evidence, so if you approach C like a conversation you're like, "Oh yea, but what about the expert's testimonies?" C could say back to you, "Umm.. well that's only one way evidence is presented, I'm talking in general here." Or C could also technically say, "Yea, and the judge prescreened him so I'm still right." But also, what C is really saying is HOW they determine the credibility of the WITNESS presenting the evidence, not the evidence itself, and not sure their "how" or process matters. I think that's a whole different thing entirely.

I think the thing with A is that under testing conditions it's easy to blow right past it thinking to yourself that the conclusion could be right even if they didn't know the judge prescreened the evidence for credibility first. Especially if you do what I did where I said to myself, "Oh, he prescreened it so it's just actually credible, that's why they believe it, it's not garbage claims like, Pepsi is better than
Coke because Jimmy's favorite restaurant serves it and they only serve the best." But then that wouldn't explain why they have a different reaction to that same credible evidence outside the courtroom as well. If it's just super credible because it's been prescreened and the jury can tell because they're so smart, then they'd be able to tell elsewhere as well.

So, A is like, "Listen, it matters if they know the judge prescreened it because your whole thing is they believe it because the judge approved it. If they don't know the judge approved it, the house of cards tumbles."

[ohthatpatrick]

When an author presents a CURIOUS FACT and then concludes a CAUSAL INTERPRETATION of that curious fact, we always ask the same two skeptical questions:
1. Is there some OTHER WAY to explain that [curious fact]?
2. How PLAUSIBLE is the [author’s interpretation]?

Here that means we’re either looking for an answer that addresses
1. a DIFFERENT reason why people tend to trust science in a courtroom more than the same science in the outside world
2. How PLAUSIBLE is this hypothesis that “Jurors trust science in a courtroom more because judges prescreen the evidence”

(A) deals with the plausibility. In order for jurors to think differently about courtroom science because judges have prescreened the science, it would have to be true that jurors ARE AWARE that the science evidence has already been vetted.

If we heard, “Jim is wearing a lot of cologne tonight [curious fact]. It must be because Maria is coming to the party. [author’s causal interpretation.”

We’d consider
1. How ELSE could we explain why Jim is wearing a lot of cologne?
2. How PLAUSIBLE is the hypothesis that he’s wearing it because Maria is coming to the party?

FRIEND 1: Jim is wearing a lot of cologne tonight. It must be because Maria is coming to the party.
FRIEND 2: But Jim has no idea that Maria is coming to the party.
FRIEND 1: Oh, nevermind, I guess it’s not that then.

[AyakiK696]

But wouldn't B be a example of the former (i.e. an alternative cause)? That was my reason for choosing B over A; I was over-thinking the question and thought that perhaps the test-writers were being extra tricky. Wouldn't B suggest that the hypothesis is wrong, because it would suggest that the increased "credibility" of the evidence has more to do with the group decision-making process, rather than the screening process of the evidence?

[ohthatpatrick]

It's not quite an example of an alternate cause because the hypothesis is that
"trusting courtroom evidence more than outside evidence is PRIMARILY due to the fact that judges pre-screen the evidence".

So even if jurors ARE influenced by other members of the jury, that doesn't weaken the argument. If they are MOST INFLUENCED by other jurors, sure, that weakens.

[AyakiK696]

That makes a lot of sense! I guess I really just have to be extra careful to pay attention to the way that modifiers are used in the stimulus. Thank you!

[SaruS381]

I picked A for a different reason!
I thought: if the jurors knew that the judge had prescreened the info they may blindly believe that the info is credible because the judge (an authority here) passed it and could be in fact that the judge didn’t pass credible info? Or indeed did?

Could that not be correct?
Plus since the hypothesis concerns the judge screening the info, correct answer had to touch base on the something about the judge and only answer A does that!

[VickX462]

When an author presents a CURIOUS FACT and then concludes a CAUSAL INTERPRETATION of that curious fact, we always ask the same two skeptical questions:
1. Is there some OTHER WAY to explain that [curious fact]?
2. How PLAUSIBLE is the [author’s interpretation]?

Here that means we’re either looking for an answer that addresses
1. a DIFFERENT reason why people tend to trust science in a courtroom more than the same science in the outside world
2. How PLAUSIBLE is this hypothesis that “Jurors trust science in a courtroom more because judges prescreen the evidence”

(A) deals with the plausibility. In order for jurors to think differently about courtroom science because judges have prescreened the science, it would have to be true that jurors ARE AWARE that the science evidence has already been vetted.

If we heard, “Jim is wearing a lot of cologne tonight [curious fact]. It must be because Maria is coming to the party. [author’s causal interpretation.”

We’d consider
1. How ELSE could we explain why Jim is wearing a lot of cologne?
2. How PLAUSIBLE is the hypothesis that he’s wearing it because Maria is coming to the party?

FRIEND 1: Jim is wearing a lot of cologne tonight. It must be because Maria is coming to the party.
FRIEND 2: But Jim has no idea that Maria is coming to the party.
FRIEND 1: Oh, nevermind, I guess it’s not that then.

Hi Patrick,

To me the argument seems to boil down to this: jurors regard the evidence as more credible because only credible scientific evidence is presented in the courtroom. It is the credible nature of the evidence that leads jurors to believe it. I picked (B) because it ID an alternative cause––jurors are influenced by other jurors, not the inherent credibility of the admitted evidence.

Where do you think I make a mistake?

Thanks!