Hello! I didn't see any prior discussions on this question, and it's confusing me a bit so I wanted to get some outside opinions!
https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-29-section-4-question-17/
We have an underlying principle/SA question which means that our answer needs to fill the logic gap pretty much completely.
Background info says that confidence of a testimony has little correlation with the accuracy of said testimony.
Support says that factors can alter the confidence of a testimony without changing its accuracy.
Conclusion says that police officers shouldn't allow situations where witnesses giving testimony can hear other witnesses giving testimonies.
The designated correct answer for gives us the principle that the confidence in one's testimony is affected by seeing other testimonies. To me, this leaped out as a wrong answer choice because the passage seems to suggest that confidence in one's testimony doesn't really matter, so there would be no incentive to prevent it.
D, on the other hand, seemed to fill the gap using unusual, but plausibly correct logic. If the police, for some reason, cared about confidence more than accuracy, factors that change confidence would want to be controlled. I don't know why Police would want to know about confidence rather than accuracy, but it's not our job as test takers to question the likelihood of a gap-closer to occur in the real world; we want to know if that gap closer, taken as it is, would bridge the support with the conclusion.
D does it in an ugly fashion, but I don't think A does it at all. Knowing that viewing other testimonies can alter confidence doesn't give us any logical reason for police officers wanting to prevent it. We can't bridge the gap between evidence and officers stopping testimony exposure without understanding the criterion based on which an officer would want to prevent testimony exposure. Even if you make the least extreme assumption and consider that police would want to stop something that alters the accuracy of a testimony, (since accuracy of evidence is important to court cases) answer A becomes more flawed in that it gives the support an attribute that the police wouldn't care about, or use in a decision for policy.
Any help is appreciated :) Thanks guys!
