I don't know about you guys but I like to imagine that the stimulus is placed Infront of me and all my friends in a casual setting and we all make fun of the argument and say it sucks because it forget _. Makes this unit super entertaining and so far works really well LOL.
I picked the correct answer through process of elimination, but I'm not understanding how answer choice 'C' is indisputably correct.
The arguer does not seem concerned with whether the test is reliable at all, but instead is simply concerned with whether there is broad consensus on the known reliability of that test.
I thought of it like a rule application prompt, almost. In order to be used in Court (for criminal cases), the evidence's reliability must be agreed-upon by the scientific community.
In this case, it seems like this is not flawed, I fail to see how the premises don't support the conclusion. It seems like the argument is ironclad in demonstrating how DNA evidence fails to trigger the conclusion which would allow its usage in Court. Just because DNA evidence is seen as reliable, it still fails to meet the conditions needed for the rule to trigger here.
@danielleiebradley834 Ooh, this is a great question - I think I can help explain!
The only info we have about how scientific experts feel about DNA tests is that there is "considerable controversy" about "how reliable these tests are".
The only info we have about allowing evidence in courts is that unless there’s “widespread agreement in the scientific community” about a test’s reliability, it’s “unreasonable for courts to allow evidence based on that test”.
So, we know for sure that there’s considerable controversy among experts about DNA tests.
But… what if there’s also widespread agreement? The argument never rules out this possibility, and that’s why it’s flawed. It basically assumes “considerable controversy” = no “widespread agreement”.
I think it would’ve been helpful for J.Y. to clearly articulate that “considerable controversy” and “widespread agreement” aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive.
Because we can’t rule out the possibility that there’s still widespread agreement among these experts, then, based on the second premise (“Unless there is widespread agreement in the scientific community about how reliable a certain test is, it is unreasonable for the courts to allow evidence based on that test”), we have no idea whether it’s unreasonable for courts to allow DNA evidence: maybe there’s widespread agreement about it, maybe there’s not. So then, this means that the analyst can’t conclude that courts should not allow DNA evidence.
I can give an example of how this concept applies, in case you find it helpful. Basically, it’s entirely possible that there’s “widespread agreement” in the scientific community that DNA tests are, say, 95%-100% reliable, while at the same time, there’s “considerable controversy” about where exactly their reliability falls on this spectrum. Maybe half the scientists insist these tests are 95%-97% reliable, and half the scientists insist these tests are actually 97%-100% reliable. Maybe it’s hotly debated, and scientists get all up in each other’s faces about it. But, at the end of the day, if the scientists still widely agree that DNA tests are 95%-100% reliable, that means there’s “widespread agreement” despite the “considerable controversy”. And if there’s “widespread agreement,” evidence based on DNA tests would not be unreasonable to use in court. And if that’s the case, then the conclusion of the argument (“courts shouldn’t allow DNA tests”) makes no sense.
I got this one but anyone else consistently finding 3/5 difficulty questions to be sometimes most difficult? I think I overthink them the most since they sit somewhere right in the middle of perceived difficulty. In my practice tests my wrong answers are 3/5s & 5/5s. yiiiiiikies
The way I saw this is that just because there exists considerable controversy about how powerful Superman is, it doesn't mean Superman has very little power.
So just because there exists considerable controversy about the reliability of DNA tests doesn't mean their reliability is at rock bottom.
I would have struggled so much w this one but I just read the LSAT Dragon chapter on False Assumption flaws and when I read the question stem, I knew right away I had to do POE on the ACs and pick the one that if true, would strengthen the arg. def recommend that book ya'll its been a gaaameee changer. 7sage helps me re- enforce concepts and practice but LSAT dragon has game changing tips and explanations
Personally, I struggled with this question because I lost sight of the fact that it's a principle/rule-application question.
Principle/rule:
Unless there is widespread agreement in the scientific community about how reliable a certain test is, it is unreasonable for the courts to allow evidence based on that test.
/widespread agreement --> unreasonable
Application:
P: There exists considerable controversy among scientific experts about how reliable DNA tests are. C: Courts should not allow the use of DNA tests in criminal cases.
The analyst assumes that considerable controvery means there is no widespread agreement. Based on that, he concludes court shouldn't allow the use of DNA tests.
However, he fails to consider that there could be widespread agreement among scientists about the reliability of these tests. It means that they might agree that these test are reliable, but maybe the controversy among is about how reliable these tests are.
I understand why C is correct but it seems like it may require you to read something into the stimulus. The argument presented is simply that there must be widespread agreement about the reliability of the DNA tests in order for them to be admissible in court. That doesn't require the controversy to be as varied as the explanation for this answer choice suggests. Even if the difference in how the scientists assess reliability is only 98% vs. 99%, the argument is just saying that there cannot be widespread disagreement however large or small. Can someone clear this up for me?
it seems these kinds of flaw questions which aren't really informal, formal, or sufficiency necessity ones are all about noticing inconsistencies in the logic or assumptions .
66 comments
this question is so dumb
Anyone else feel like answer choices are so much more obvious when JY walks through them?
Makes so much more sense following along when JY speaks, then when I read lol
He makes each one seem incredibly stupid. Example A says:" Peepee pooopooo, choose me!"
God these questions are so hit or miss I feel like I'm going crazy
Oh this one did not click for me at all. Chose A and then B in BR.
I don't know about you guys but I like to imagine that the stimulus is placed Infront of me and all my friends in a casual setting and we all make fun of the argument and say it sucks because it forget _. Makes this unit super entertaining and so far works really well LOL.
Icarus flew too close to the sun tonight
maybe im just not cut out for this shit man
@RaymanMartinez me every time i get a 0% on actual take and 0% on BR
this one sucked
I picked the correct answer through process of elimination, but I'm not understanding how answer choice 'C' is indisputably correct.
The arguer does not seem concerned with whether the test is reliable at all, but instead is simply concerned with whether there is broad consensus on the known reliability of that test.
I thought of it like a rule application prompt, almost. In order to be used in Court (for criminal cases), the evidence's reliability must be agreed-upon by the scientific community.
In this case, it seems like this is not flawed, I fail to see how the premises don't support the conclusion. It seems like the argument is ironclad in demonstrating how DNA evidence fails to trigger the conclusion which would allow its usage in Court. Just because DNA evidence is seen as reliable, it still fails to meet the conditions needed for the rule to trigger here.
#help
@danielleiebradley834 Ooh, this is a great question - I think I can help explain!
The only info we have about how scientific experts feel about DNA tests is that there is "considerable controversy" about "how reliable these tests are".
The only info we have about allowing evidence in courts is that unless there’s “widespread agreement in the scientific community” about a test’s reliability, it’s “unreasonable for courts to allow evidence based on that test”.
So, we know for sure that there’s considerable controversy among experts about DNA tests.
But… what if there’s also widespread agreement? The argument never rules out this possibility, and that’s why it’s flawed. It basically assumes “considerable controversy” = no “widespread agreement”.
I think it would’ve been helpful for J.Y. to clearly articulate that “considerable controversy” and “widespread agreement” aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive.
Because we can’t rule out the possibility that there’s still widespread agreement among these experts, then, based on the second premise (“Unless there is widespread agreement in the scientific community about how reliable a certain test is, it is unreasonable for the courts to allow evidence based on that test”), we have no idea whether it’s unreasonable for courts to allow DNA evidence: maybe there’s widespread agreement about it, maybe there’s not. So then, this means that the analyst can’t conclude that courts should not allow DNA evidence.
I can give an example of how this concept applies, in case you find it helpful. Basically, it’s entirely possible that there’s “widespread agreement” in the scientific community that DNA tests are, say, 95%-100% reliable, while at the same time, there’s “considerable controversy” about where exactly their reliability falls on this spectrum. Maybe half the scientists insist these tests are 95%-97% reliable, and half the scientists insist these tests are actually 97%-100% reliable. Maybe it’s hotly debated, and scientists get all up in each other’s faces about it. But, at the end of the day, if the scientists still widely agree that DNA tests are 95%-100% reliable, that means there’s “widespread agreement” despite the “considerable controversy”. And if there’s “widespread agreement,” evidence based on DNA tests would not be unreasonable to use in court. And if that’s the case, then the conclusion of the argument (“courts shouldn’t allow DNA tests”) makes no sense.
I hope this helps!
@ananasanonyme You are amazing, thank you!!
@ananasanonyme Extremely helpful, thank you!!
C is nasty. literally is redundant
widespread agreement...... oh shit.
Chopped liver
They be trynna get me with that grammar :>
Ugh I chose C initially and chose A in my BR
Me too :(
me also :((((
"It seems the tests are 102% accurate with a 2% margin of error. Why, God, Why?!?!?!"
I got this one but anyone else consistently finding 3/5 difficulty questions to be sometimes most difficult? I think I overthink them the most since they sit somewhere right in the middle of perceived difficulty. In my practice tests my wrong answers are 3/5s & 5/5s. yiiiiiikies
yessss sometimes I get level 4/5 right super fast and it be a whole bunch of 3/5 wrong like wtf lmao
The way I saw this is that just because there exists considerable controversy about how powerful Superman is, it doesn't mean Superman has very little power.
So just because there exists considerable controversy about the reliability of DNA tests doesn't mean their reliability is at rock bottom.
That felt really hard. I understood as soon as I answered A that no real information on how reliable DNA evidence is was a red flag.
picked C first, didnt rlly understand it so I just picked A
I saw someone say to trust how u mentally got to an answer but if I don't completely get it, I just assume I'm wrong ://
Best strategy for me seems to be trying to predict the flaw, but being open to the ACs.
I would have struggled so much w this one but I just read the LSAT Dragon chapter on False Assumption flaws and when I read the question stem, I knew right away I had to do POE on the ACs and pick the one that if true, would strengthen the arg. def recommend that book ya'll its been a gaaameee changer. 7sage helps me re- enforce concepts and practice but LSAT dragon has game changing tips and explanations
Personally, I struggled with this question because I lost sight of the fact that it's a principle/rule-application question.
Principle/rule:
Unless there is widespread agreement in the scientific community about how reliable a certain test is, it is unreasonable for the courts to allow evidence based on that test.
/widespread agreement --> unreasonable
Application:
P: There exists considerable controversy among scientific experts about how reliable DNA tests are. C: Courts should not allow the use of DNA tests in criminal cases.
The analyst assumes that considerable controvery means there is no widespread agreement. Based on that, he concludes court shouldn't allow the use of DNA tests.
However, he fails to consider that there could be widespread agreement among scientists about the reliability of these tests. It means that they might agree that these test are reliable, but maybe the controversy among is about how reliable these tests are.
Took me 10 minutes to get this one bruh
I understand why C is correct but it seems like it may require you to read something into the stimulus. The argument presented is simply that there must be widespread agreement about the reliability of the DNA tests in order for them to be admissible in court. That doesn't require the controversy to be as varied as the explanation for this answer choice suggests. Even if the difference in how the scientists assess reliability is only 98% vs. 99%, the argument is just saying that there cannot be widespread disagreement however large or small. Can someone clear this up for me?
I had Deja Vu about this question, and the answer I pick being wrong. And I ignored it.
it seems these kinds of flaw questions which aren't really informal, formal, or sufficiency necessity ones are all about noticing inconsistencies in the logic or assumptions .