LSAT 125 – Section 4 – Question 21

LSAT 125 - Section 4 - Question 21

June 2008

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:53

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
PT125 S4 Q21
+LR
Resolve reconcile or explain +RRE
Net Effect +NetEff
A
2%
157
B
2%
159
C
64%
164
D
8%
157
E
24%
161
139
155
171
 +Harder 145.982 +SubsectionMedium

In an experiment, volunteers witnessed a simulated crime. After they witnessed the simulation the volunteers were first questioned by a lawyer whose goal was to get them to testify inaccurately about the event. They were then cross-examined by another lawyer whose goal was to cause them to correct the inaccuracies in their testimony. The witnesses who gave testimony containing fewer inaccurate details than most of the other witnesses during the first lawyer’s questioning also gave testimony containing a greater number of inaccurate details than most of the other witnesses during cross-examination.

"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why did the witnesses who gave less inaccurate details than usual at first end up giving more inaccurate details than usual later?

Objective
The correct answer will be a hypothesis that explains why witnesses who gave relatively accurate accounts when prompted to give inaccuracies ended up giving relatively inaccurate accounts when prompted to answer accurately. We don’t know whether these witnesses changed their testimonies at all the second time around, or if the rest of the group simply started amending their erroneous details. But a hypothesis that points to either of these explanations would help explain the situation.

A
These witnesses were more observant about details than were most of the other witnesses.
This would explain why the first group gave more accurate testimonies the first time around. But why would that change when they gave their testimonies a second time? We need something to reconcile that discrepancy.
B
These witnesses had better memories than did most of the other witnesses.
Like (A), this answer choice explains why the first group gave more accurate testimonies the first time around. We need to know why their testimonies were relatively inaccurate the second time.
C
These witnesses were less inclined than most of the other witnesses to be influenced in their testimony by the nature of the questioning.
These witnesses didn’t change much about their testimonies the second time around. So, while they weren’t led towards inaccuracies on the first go as the other witnesses were, they also weren’t led towards accurate details the second time.
D
These witnesses were unclear about the details at first but then began to remember more accurately as they answered questions.
This could be true, but it doesn’t reconcile the fact these witnesses were more accurate than others the first time around and less accurate the second. We need something comparative between the two groups.
E
These witnesses tended to give testimony containing more details than most of the other witnesses.
It doesn’t matter how detailed their testimonies were. We need to know why those details were relatively accurate on first examination and relatively inaccurate on second examination.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 125 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply