Self-paced
Support 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. ███████ ███ ████████ ███████ █████ ████████ ██████████ ██████ ██ ███████ ████████ ███████████ ██ ████ ███ ███████ ███ ███ ████████████ █████ ██ ██ ███ ████████ ███████ ██ ███████ ████ ██████ ██ █████████ ███ ████ ██████████
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 it was the individual forensic scientists involved who wrongfully acted with allegiance to the prosecution, rather than acting impartiality for both the prosecution and defence.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that allegiance to the prosecution isn’t an essential aspect of forensic science in a trial; if it was, then forensic science in general would indeed be to blame for the miscarriage of justice. The author also assumes that forensic science as a whole is not well-represented by these forensic scientists.
16.
Which one of the following, ██ █████ ████ ███████████ ███ █████████
a
Most forensic scientists ███████████ █ ████████████ ██████████ ██ ███████ ████████ ███████████ ██ ████ ███ ███████ ███ ███ ████████████
Allegiance to the prosecution isn’t an integral aspect of forensic scientists' conduct—these particular forensic scientists' mistaken conduct was an outlier. This strengthens the claim that forensic science isn’t the issue.
b
The type of █████████ ████ ████████ ██ ███ ██████ ████ ███ ████████ ██ █████ █████ ██ █████
Does this mean that biased conduct is typical of forensic scientists? If so, that would actually weaken the argument. But we don't actually know how often this happens, and can't assume, so this just doesn't affect the argument.
c
Most prosecuting lawyers ███████ ████ ████████ ██████████ ███ █ ███████ ██████████ ██ ███ ████████████
What prosecuting lawyers believe isn't relevant to how much this conduct reflects on forensic science, so it's irrelevant to the argument.
d
Many instances of █████████ ██ █████ █████ ███ ███ ██ ███ ████ ████ ██ ████ █████ ████████ ██ ███ ██████ █████
The argument is concerned with the specific role of forensic science in trials, not miscarriages of justice in general, so this isn't relevant.
e
Many forensic scientists ██ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ███████████ ██ ███████ ████████ ██ ███ ██████ █████
How many is "many"? We don't know if this view represents forensic scientists in general, so it doesn't affect the argument. And if this were the general view, it would weaken, not strengthen.