LSAT 146 – Section 3 – Question 08

LSAT 146 - Section 3 - Question 08

June 2016

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 0:59

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
PT146 S3 Q08
+LR
Evaluate +Eval
Causal Reasoning +CausR
A
87%
164
B
3%
162
C
4%
159
D
3%
160
E
2%
159
120
135
151
 +Easier 146.758 +SubsectionMedium

Numerous studies suggest that when scientific evidence is presented in a trial, jurors regard that evidence as more credible than they would if they had encountered the same evidence outside of the courtroom context. Legal theorists have hypothesized that this effect is primarily due to the fact that judges prescreen scientific evidence and allow only credible scientific evidence to be presented in the courtroom.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
Legal theorists hypothesize that jurors in a trial regard scientific evidence as more credible than they would outside a trial because judges prescreen scientific evidence, and therefore allow only credible scientific evidence in the courtroom.

Notable Assumptions
Legal theorists assume that jurors not only know judges prescreen scientific evidence, but that jurors also trust judges to do so in a way where only credible evidence is allowed in the courtroom. Legal theorists also assume that some other, unaccounted-for reason—i.e. hearing such scientific evidence in-depth—leads jurors to give scientific evidence more credence in trials than they otherwise would outside trials.

A
whether jurors typically know that judges have appraised the scientific evidence presented at trial
If jurors don’t know that judges have appraised the scientific evidence, then they can’t be confident in the evidence for the reason the legal theorists have hypothesized. If they are, then the hypothesis remains possible.
B
whether jurors’ reactions to scientific evidence presented at trial are influenced by other members of the jury
Even if some jurors are influenced by other jurors, we’re interested in why any jurors at all give scientific evidence more credence when it’s presented at a trial than when it’s encountered elsewhere.
C
how jurors determine the credibility of an expert witness who is presenting scientific evidence in a trial
We’re not interested in expert witnesses. We have no reason to believe jurors determine expert credibility with the same criteria they use to evaluate scientific evidence.
D
whether jurors typically draw upon their own scientific knowledge when weighing scientific evidence presented at trial
Do jurors do this in non-trial situations? We have no idea, which means this has no bearing on the legal theorists’ hypothesis: that jurors give scientific evidence more credence in trials than they would elsewhere.
E
how jurors respond to situations in which different expert witnesses give conflicting assessments of scientific evidence
We’re not interested in expert witnesses. We’re interested in scientific evidence.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 146 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply