Support ·Appellate courts don't have important tools for figuring out what's true
Live testimony from experts can help judges understand scientific stuff, and cross-examination of those experts can help discover what's true. Appellate judges don't get these things, since they happen only at the trial level.
This question is about how passage B relates to passage A, so we’ll need to read both passages before answering. Author B says that a strength of the adversarial structure of trials is that scientific evidence can be challenged through cross-examination. Author A also talks about this adversarial structure, but says it’s poorly equipped to handle scientific evidence. Author B would take issue with this criticism.
The referenced claim in passage B says that the adversarial structure of cross-examination is a good way to deal with scientific evidence. Nothing about that contradicts author A’s claim that it’s okay for judges to sometimes do independent research. Author B would say sure, expert witnesses can be cross-examined and then trial judges can do independent research too, if they want.
b
The adversarial system ██ ████████████ ██████████ ██ ████████ ███████████ ██████████
Author B would take issue with this claim. He has a positive view of the adversarial system’s ability to deal with scientific evidence by subjecting expert witnesses to cross-examination.
This says that when a judge decides to allow or block certain scientific evidence, it has a downstream effect on what kinds of evidence are allowed in future trials. The referenced claim in passage B says that the adversarial structure of cross-examination is a good way to deal with scientific evidence. There’s nothing contradictory in these two ideas. Author B would say sure, judges can make decisions about what evidence to allow. And then expert witnesses can be cross-examined over the evidence that’s allowed.
d
Erroneous decisions can ██ ███████ ███████ ██ █████ ████████
The referenced claim in passage B says that the adversarial structure of cross-examination is a good way to deal with scientific evidence. Nothing about that contradicts author A’s claim that trials put guardrails on independent research. Author B would say sure, expert witnesses can be cross-examined through the course of a trial, and if trial judges want, they do some independent research within the bounds of the trial structure.
Difficulty
71% of people who answer get this correct
This is a difficult question.
It is somewhat easier than other questions in this passage.
CURVE
Score of students with a 50% chance of getting this right
25%148
155
75%162
Analysis
Author’s perspective
Implied
Comparative
Law
Answer Popularity
PopularityAvg. score
a
5%
156
b
71%
164
c
6%
155
d
8%
158
e
9%
157
Question history
You don't have any history with this question.. yet!
You've discovered a premium feature!
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.