PT105.S4.Q16 > Question

SECTION 1 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

SECTION 2 · lr

SECTION 3 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7

PASSAGE 2

Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14

PASSAGE 3

Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21

PASSAGE 4

Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

SECTION 4 · lr

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.

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.

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.

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.

What prosecuting lawyers believe isn't relevant to how much this conduct reflects on forensic science, so it's irrelevant to the argument.

The argument is concerned with the specific role of forensic science in trials, not miscarriages of justice in general, so this isn't relevant.

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.

PrepTest 105 - Section 4 - Question 16

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action