LSAT 126 – Section 4 – Question 20

LSAT 126 - Section 4 - Question 20

October 2008

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Request new explanation

Target time: 0:54

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT126 S4 Q20
+LR
+Exp
Weaken +Weak
Net Effect +NetEff
Link Assumption +LinkA
A
10%
158
B
85%
164
C
2%
156
D
2%
155
E
1%
157
129
142
154
 +Medium 147.084 +SubsectionMedium

People who have specialized knowledge about a scientific or technical issue are systematically excluded from juries for trials where that issue is relevant. Thus, trial by jury is not a fair means of settling disputes involving such issues.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that trial by jury isn’t a fair way to settle disputes involving scientific or technical issues. This is because people who have special knowledge of these issues are systematically excluded from juries.

Notable Assumptions
The author believes that a trial is unfair if people with relevant knowledge are systematically excluded from sitting on juries in those trials. This means the author assumes that fair trials cannot intentionally exclude people whose knowledge may be relevant to the trial.

A
The more complicated the issue being litigated, the less likely it is that a juror without specialized knowledge of the field involved will be able to comprehend the testimony being given.
This seems to strengthen the author’s argument. We’re looking for something that tells us juries are still fair even when they exclude people with relevant knowledge.
B
The more a juror knows about a particular scientific or technical issue involved in a trial, the more likely it is that the juror will be prejudiced in favor of one of the litigating parties before the trial begins.
Special knowledge actually renders a trial jury less fair, since the member with special knowledge is more likely to be prejudiced towards one party before the trial even starts. Thus, there’s a good reason why such people are systematically excluded.
C
Appointing an impartial arbitrator is not a fair means of settling disputes involving scientific or technical issues, because arbitrators tend to favor settlements in which both parties compromise on the issues.
The author never mentions impartial arbitrators. Even if those were the only other option, jury trials might still be unfair.
D
Experts who give testimony on scientific or technical issues tend to hedge their conclusions by discussing the possibility of error.
What effect does this have on jurors? Without more information, we can’t say this weakens the author’s claim that jury trials are unfair.
E
Expert witnesses in specialized fields often command fees that are so high that many people involved in litigation cannot afford their services.
Feasibility is beside the point. Besides, we don’t care about witnesses—we care about jurors.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 126 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply