LR Question- Eyewitness identification (Sorry abt the title..forget it comes from which PT..)

YY MMMM.

Hi guys, sorry about the title..I did the question several days ago..so I forget it comes from which PT..As soon as I find out i will change the discussion title.

Studies of the reliability of eyewitness identifications show little correlation between the accuracy of a witness's account and the confidence the witness has in the account. Certain factors can increase or undermine a witness's confidence without altering the accuracy of the identification. Therefore, police officers are advised to disallow suspect lineups in which witnesses can hear one another identifying suspects.

Which one of the following is a principle underlying the advice given to police officers?

(A) The confidence people have in what they remember having seen is affected by their awareness of what other people claim to have seen.
(B) Unless an eyewitness is confronted with more than one suspect at a time, the accuracy of his or her statements cannot be trusted.
(C) If several eyewitnesses all identify the same suspect in a lineup, it is more likely that the suspect committed the crime than if only one eyewitness identifies the suspect.
(D) Police officers are more interested in the confidene witnesses have when testifying than in the accuracy of that testimony.
(E) The accuracy of an eyewitness account is doubtful if the eyewitness contradicts what other eyewitnesses claim to have seen.

LSATisland

Stimulus states the confidence of a witness has little correlation to accuracy. A witness can be 100% sure the suspect was "X" when it was really "Y". Or, a witness can be uncertain, yet accurate. There are various factors that affect confidence, but do not change accuracy.

(At this point we should be wary of confidence of witnesses, or at least of the factors that affect their confidence.)

Stimulus concludes that witnesses should not be allowed to hear other witnesses during suspect line-ups.

(The assumption is that if you are standing there and hear another witness exclaim that it was "X", this will likely affect the confidence of your choice. If you had thought it was "X", hearing others choose "X" as well will increase your confidence, and vice-versa.)

(A) states the assumption precisely. We don't want to affect confidence of witness; that will only make it harder to accurately assess his testimony.

Let me know if it's still unclear.

YY MMMM.

Thank you @LSATisland.
Reading this(At this point we should be wary of confidence of witnesses, or at least of the factors that affect their confidence.), I wonder if the question 'Which one of the following is a principle underlying the advice given to police officers? ' can be interpreted into ' What is the necessary assumption underlying the advice' ?

LSATisland

The answer choice (A) is an assumption that justifies the conclusion, but potentially there could be other reasons. So (A) is a sufficient assumption for the conclusion, not a necessary one.

YY MMMM.

@LSATisland
given A I don't see the conclusion is justified..because the argument doesn't state that if sth is irrelevent to accuracy, it is not advised to affect that thing..
(But it seems a psudo-sufficient one...)
Does it mean if I am attacking question asking the principle underlying the argument, I can see it as asking a psyudo-sufficient assumption?
Many thanks!

LSATisland

Yes, I overstated it by saying the conclusion is justified. It is what the question refers to it as - a principle underlying the conclusion. I guess you can look at it as 'pseudo-sufficient'.