#feedback Not sure if it's just me or the new version of 7Sage, but I don't see the meditation audio files any more!

@nicolesteinberg133 This is so helpful - thank you! Happy studying :)

@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!

#Feedback can you include an option for us to take these practice questions timed on the new version of the website? I really liked having that option.