54.4.21 In an experiment

Accounts Playable

I really don't understand how the correct answer choice addresses the paradox.

After some people witnessed a fake crime, two lawyers questioned the witnesses. The first lawyer tried top mess them up and the second lawyer tried to correct the inaccuracies. The witnesses who gave testimony that had FEWER inaccuracies during lawyer one's interrogation had the greatest NUMBER of inaccuracies than most of the other witnesses when questioned by lawyer two.

What I am looking for: I was convinced during the exam that the correct answer choice was going to be some bias the accurate witnesses had over the other witnesses. Or, that the second lawyer phrased questions that confused the accurate witnesses/asked questions about different topics than lawyer one. These were not answer choices, so I ended up spinning my wheels a lot on this.

Answer A: This explains possibly why they were more accurate at the start, but why did they have more inaccuracies later?

Answer B: This is a lot like A. If they had better memory, why did they all of a sudden have inaccurate testimony? This makes it weirder, I think.

Answer C: I don't see how this helps resolve the problem. I eliminated it during the exam and during BR since I thought it made the problem even weirder. I think it does explains why they were so accurate to begin with: they were not swayed by lawyer one's bullshit. But how does it explain the fact that they were more inaccurate later? To get this to work, don't you need to assume that either these witnesses became less confident after lawyer one's questioning (which seems bizarre since this sort of contradicts this answer choice's entire point) or that the second lawyer's line of questioning focused on the stuff that these witnesses didn't remember? But how do we assume that this latter case is true? Additionally, wouldn't the "most of the other witnesses" also be inclined to increase their inaccuracy as well? I just don't understand how this makes the paradox anything but weirder, let alone resolve it.

Answer This definitely makes the paradox weirder. If they were unsure to begin with, then how were they so accurate?

Answer E: This is what I chose during the exam/BR since it was POE. I didn't really understand how it actually resolved the paradox (which was flag one/the reason why I marked it for BR). I think to get this to work, you have to assume that they gave so many more details, that they got a lot of stuff accurate since they were spewing details out left and right (this would explain the accuracy part). To resolve the other part, you have to assume that the "most other people" started remembering things more accurately, so those people improved over the originally accurate people. This was my line of reasoning during the exam and BR, but I knew I was making way too many assumptions. However, since I could at least think of a plausible reason for this one, I picked it.

diana1493

I thought of it this way: If the witnesses mentioned are less inclined to be swayed by the questioning, then that would mean when Lawyer 1 is trying to mess them up they would not be influenced. Hence, less inaccuracies. When lawyer 2 is trying to get witnesses to correct their statements, the witnesses mentioned also don't budge. So, while everyone else's inaccuracies were corrected, the witnesses who weren't influenced did not change their answers and therefore ended up with the most inaccuracies.