PT54.S4.Q21 - in an experiment, volunteers

angelin_ju1101

After looking at this question for quite a while, this question still does not click with me.

I am not too sure how answer choice C can effectively close the gap.

Thank you so much for your help!
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-54-section-4-question-21/

BinghamtonDave

Hello, first thing that I should state here is that if possible, look into a 7Sage package. The explanation for this one particular question is packed with over 7 minutes of detail. The explanations are a foundation for my continued improvement on this exam. I cannot recommend them highly enough.

Lets look at whats going on here with a specific example that hopefully sheds some light. This argument is actually a much abridged version of something we will all one day be familiar with as law students: the mailability/problems with eyewitness testimony. There is a study in which a group of 10 people have to watch a simulated crime, say: a bank robbery. The act of watching this crime, makes them eyewitnesses. What is hidden as an assumption here is that the lawyers must know the objective/controlled details of the robbery/suspect. For the purposes of illustration: this is our bank robber:

-He's 5 foot 9
-He is 155 pounds
-He has various tattoos
-He has an Irish accent

The eyewitnesses are then asked questions about the bank robbery by two lawyers: the first has a job to essentially push them towards the objective falsehoods about the robbery/suspect: What this first lawyer is doing here is essentially trying to prove that with the right questions: you can get the eyewitness to say things one wishes, thus, possibly discrediting them. After a round of questioning by this lawyer: 7 out of our 10 people ended up on the witness stand describing this guy:

-He's 6 foot 9
-He's 230 pounds
-He has no tattoos
-He is from California and does not speak with an Irish accent

During the first round of testimony, 3 out of 10 do not describe the second guy as much as the other 7. They describe someone more like the first picture.

So then we get to our second round of questioning: this time by a lawyer whose job is to get the eyewitnesses to correctly describe the first guy. This time 7 out of 10 are moved towards correctly describing the guy and the same 3 out of 10 describe the guy less accurately than the 7.

So here is our alleged paradox in a nutshell: we have a group of 3 people who seem to not to be that malleable in their description of the suspect. They seem (to me at least) to be essentially stubborn in their description. Steadfast. What could be causing that?

I think once you get to this point (C) is obvious. The group that doesn't seem to be as malleable than the others during the testimony is sticking to their story: the are "less inclined to be influenced by questioning."

In conclusion, like many paradox questions, there really isn't a whole lot of tension here once we unravel the stimulus. Essentially, we have a group of people who are sticking to their story, regardless of the aim or voracity of the questioning.

I hope the above is of help to you, any further questions on this or other questions please don't hesitate to reach out.

David

angelin_ju1101

Oh my god, your explanation makes so much sense, I totally entangled myself to way too much thoughts!

Thank you so much!