People who have specialized knowledge about a scientific or technical issue are systematically excluded from juries for trials where that issue is relevant. Thus, trial by jury is not a fair means of settling disputes involving such issues.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that trial by jury isn’t a fair way to settle disputes involving scientific or technical issues. This is because people who have special knowledge of these issues are systematically excluded from juries.

Notable Assumptions
The author believes that a trial is unfair if people with relevant knowledge are systematically excluded from sitting on juries in those trials. This means the author assumes that fair trials cannot intentionally exclude people whose knowledge may be relevant to the trial.

A
The more complicated the issue being litigated, the less likely it is that a juror without specialized knowledge of the field involved will be able to comprehend the testimony being given.
This seems to strengthen the author’s argument. We’re looking for something that tells us juries are still fair even when they exclude people with relevant knowledge.
B
The more a juror knows about a particular scientific or technical issue involved in a trial, the more likely it is that the juror will be prejudiced in favor of one of the litigating parties before the trial begins.
Special knowledge actually renders a trial jury less fair, since the member with special knowledge is more likely to be prejudiced towards one party before the trial even starts. Thus, there’s a good reason why such people are systematically excluded.
C
Appointing an impartial arbitrator is not a fair means of settling disputes involving scientific or technical issues, because arbitrators tend to favor settlements in which both parties compromise on the issues.
The author never mentions impartial arbitrators. Even if those were the only other option, jury trials might still be unfair.
D
Experts who give testimony on scientific or technical issues tend to hedge their conclusions by discussing the possibility of error.
What effect does this have on jurors? Without more information, we can’t say this weakens the author’s claim that jury trials are unfair.
E
Expert witnesses in specialized fields often command fees that are so high that many people involved in litigation cannot afford their services.
Feasibility is beside the point. Besides, we don’t care about witnesses—we care about jurors.

11 comments

There are two kinds of horror stories: those that describe a mad scientist’s experiments and those that describe a monstrous beast. In some horror stories about monstrous beasts, the monster symbolizes a psychological disturbance in the protagonist. Horror stories about mad scientists, on the other hand, typically express the author’s feeling that scientific knowledge alone is not enough to guide human endeavor. However, despite these differences, both kinds of horror stories share two features: they describe violations of the laws of nature and they are intended to produce dread in the reader.

Summary

There are two types of horror stories: stories about mad scientists and stories about monstrous beasts.

In some stories about monstrous beasts, the beast symbolizes the psychological disturbance of the protagonist.

In some stories about mad scientists, the author expresses the feeling that science isn’t enough to guide humanity.

Both kinds of stories describe violations of the laws of nature and are intended to produce dread in the reader.

Notable Valid Inferences

Some stories that describe violations in the laws of nature are also intended to produce dread in the reader.

Some stories that express the author’s feeling about science describe violations in the laws of nature.

Some stories that symbolize the protagonist’s psychological disturbances describe violations of the laws of nature.

A
All descriptions of monstrous beasts describe violations of the laws of nature.

This could be false. We know that all horror stories that are about monstrous beasts describe violations of the laws of nature; maybe stories with monstrous beasts of other genres don’t describe violations of nature.

B
Any story that describes a violation of a law of nature is intended to invoke dread in the reader.

This could be false. We only know about horror stories that describe a violation of nature, not all stories that do so.

C
Horror stories of any kind usually describe characters who are psychologically disturbed.

This could be false. We don’t know that horror stories “of any kind” usually describe characters’ psychological disturbance; we just know that horror stories about monstrous beasts sometimes describe psychological disturbance.

D
Most stories about mad scientists express the author’s antiscientific views.

This could be false. We don’t have any indication that authors have antiscientific views; some authors may just believe that science alone isn’t enough to guide human endeavor.

E
Some stories that employ symbolism describe violations of the laws of nature.

This must be true. Whether a horror story is about a scientist or a beast, it describes a violation in the laws of nature. Some horror stories about beasts use symbolism, so there is overlap between stories that use symbolism and those about violations of natural laws.


27 comments

Larew: People in the lowest income quintile had a much higher percentage increase in average income over the last ten years than did those in the highest quintile. So their economic prosperity increased relative to the highest quintile’s.

Mendota: I disagree. The average income for the lowest quintile may have increased by a greater percentage, but the absolute amount of the increase in average income was surely greater for the highest quintile.

Speaker 1 Summary
Larew concludes that the lowest income quintile experienced a greater increase in economic prosperity than did the highest income quintile. This is because the lowest quintile’s average income increased by a greater percentage than the highest quintile’s increased.

Speaker 2 Summary
Mendota concludes that the lowest quintile’s economic prosperity did not improve more than the highest quintile’s improved. This is because the lowest quintile’s average income increased by a lower absolute amount than did the highest quintile’s.

Objective
We’re looking for a disagreement. The speakers disagree about whether the lowest quintile’s economic prosperity improved more than did the highest quintile’s, and about whether increases in economic prosperity are better measured by the percentage increase in average income or by the absolute amount of an increase.

A
change in the economic prosperity of the lowest income quintile relative to the highest is accurately measured by comparing their percentage changes in average income
This is a point of disagreement. Larew thinks change in economic prosperity is accurately measured by reference to percentage changes in average income. Mendota believes change in economic prosperity should be measured instead by the absolute amount of changes in income.
B
change in the economic prosperity of the lowest income quintile is more accurately measured in terms relative to the highest income quintile than in terms relative only to the lowest income quintile
Neither expresses an opinion. The speakers happen to compare the lowest quintile to the highest quintile. That doesn’t imply a belief that this comparison results in a better measure of change in prosperity for the lowest quintile than would a comparison to some other quintile.
C
changes in the average income of people in the lowest quintile should ever be compared to changes in the average income of people in the highest quintile
The speakers agree. Both speakers compare changes in average income between the lowest quintile and the highest quintile. Larew compares percentage increases, while Mentoda compares increases in absolute amount.
D
there were any improvements at all in the economic situation of those in the lowest income quintile during the ten years being considered
Not a point of disagreement. Larew believes there was at least some improvement in the lowest quintile’s economic situation. Mendota could agree that there was at least some improvement, just not as much as the improvement experienced by the highest quintile.
E
the average income of people in the lowest quintile increased by a greater percentage over the last decade than did that of people in the highest quintile
The speakers agree. Both acknowledge that the average income of the lowest quintile increased by a greater percentage than did that of the highest quintile.

7 comments