LSAT 105 – Section 4 – Question 16

LSAT 105 - Section 4 - Question 16

February 1999

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:01

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT105 S4 Q16
+LR
Strengthen +Streng
A
82%
166
B
3%
164
C
8%
161
D
3%
159
E
3%
163
120
138
157
 +Easier 144.839 +SubsectionEasier

The miscarriage of justice in the Barker case was due to the mistaken views held by some of the forensic scientists involved in the case, who believed that they owed allegiance only to the prosecuting lawyers. Justice was thwarted because these forensic scientists failed to provide evidence impartially to both the defense and the prosecution. Hence it is not forensic science in general that should be condemned for this injustice.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that forensic science in general wasn’t responsible for the miscarriage of justice in the Barker case. This is because the forensic scientists acted with allegiance to the prosecution, rather than impartiality to the prosecution and defence.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that allegiance to the prosecution isn’t an essential aspect of forensic science; if it was, then forensic science in general indeed would be to blame for the miscarriage of justice. The author also assumes that forensic science can be differentiated than forensic scientists themselves.

A
Most forensic scientists acknowledge a professional obligation to provide evidence impartially to both the defense and the prosecution.
Allegiance to the prosecution isn’t an integral aspect of forensic scientists. Most forensic scientists know this, which means these particular forensic scientists simply made a mistake.
B
The type of injustice that occurred in the Barker case has occurred in other cases as well.
If that injustice has appeared in other cases, perhaps routinely, then this suggests forensic science may actually be flawed. We’re looking to strengthen the opposite claim.
C
Most prosecuting lawyers believe that forensic scientists owe a special allegiance to the prosecution.
We don’t care what forensic scientists believe.
D
Many instances of injustice in court cases are not of the same type as that which occurred in the Barker case.
There’re lots of ways for justice to be miscarried. However, we only care about this specific way.
E
Many forensic scientists do not believe that any miscarriage of justice occurred in the Barker case.
This suggests many forensic scientists consistently believe they have an allegiance to the prosecution, which constitutes a miscarriage of justice. If virtually entire discipline believes this to be true, the forensic science is to blame. This could be a weakener.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 105 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply