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.
Summary
As a people, the Kuna generally have a low incidence of high blood pressure. However, Kuna who have moved to Panamanian mainland do not have low incidence of high blood pressure. Kuna who live on Panamanian islands, unlike Kuna who live on the mainland, usually drink cocoa every day. This cocoa is high is flavonoids.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Drinking cocoa high in flavonoids every day tends to decrease the incidence of high blood pressure.
A
Foods high in flavonoids are not readily available on the Panamanian mainland.
We don’t know what kinds of foods are accessible on the mainland. It is possible that the cocoa is readily available and Kuna on the mainland choose not to drink it.
B
Kuna who live on the islands drink cocoa because they believe that it is beneficial to their health.
We don’t know what the Kuna believe about the cocoa. It is possible that the Kuna drink the cocoa for other reasons, possibly because it tastes good.
C
The Kuna have a genetic predisposition to low blood pressure.
We can’t say that the Kuna are genetically predisposed to low incidence of high blood pressure. In the stimulus, we are told that Kuna who live on the mainland do not have low incidence of high blood pressure.
D
Kuna who live on the Panamanian mainland generally have higher blood pressure than other people who live on the mainland.
We don’t know anything about other people who may live on the Panamanian mainland. The stimulus is limited to the Kuna who either live on the Panamanian mainland or Panamanian islands.
E
Drinking several cups of flavonoid-rich cocoa per day tends to prevent high blood pressure.
It is likely that the cocoa drink tends to cause low incidence of high blood pressure for Kuna living on Panamanian islands. This would explain the difference in incident between Kuna living on the mainland and Kuna living on the islands.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author concludes that there are exceptions to the general rule of economists that people’s tendency to purchase a commodity is inversely proportional to its price. As support for the conclusion, the author provides an example of a commodity that breaks this rule: lace. As lace became less expensive, the lace market collapsed because lace no longer functioned as a wealth signifier.
Identify Argument Part
The claim in the question stem is an example of a commodity that follows the general rule of economists that people’s tendency to purchase a commodity is inversely proportional to its price.
A
It is described as inadequate evidence for the falsity of the argument’s conclusion.
The claim in the question stem is not used to claim that the author’s conclusion is false; the claim in the question stem is just used as an example to illustrate the economists’ rule.
B
It is described as an exception to a generalization for which the argument offers evidence.
The claim about steel is used as an example of a commodity that follows the economists’ rule, not an exception to the generalization. Further, the argument does not offer evidence of a generalization; the argument offers evidence of an exception to a generalization.
C
It is used to illustrate the generalization that, according to the argument, does not hold in all cases.
The claim about steel is used as an example to demonstrate the economists’ general rule. Additionally, the argument does say that this general rule does not hold in all cases.
D
It is the evidence that, according to the argument, led economists to embrace a false hypothesis.
The argument does not claim that the example of steel led economists to embrace anything; it is just an example that follows the economists’ rule. Further, the author does not argue that the hypothesis is false, just that it has exceptions.
E
It is cited as one of several reasons for modifying a general assumption made by economists.
The author is not advocating modification of the economists’ general rule; the author is only saying that the rule has exceptions. Further, the example about steel conforms to the general rule.