Q17 - When expert witnesses give testimony

by **mshinners** Fri Dec 31, 1999 8:00 pm

Question Type:
Inference (Most Strongly Supported)

Stimulus Breakdown:
Expert witnesses are hard to understand, and even contradicting ones frequently seem competent. Juries are therefore unable to evaluate their reliability.

Answer Anticipation:
Seems as if there's an issue with expert testimony! I'm unsure what I'm looking for, so I would make sure to head into the answer choices with some extra time so I could check back.

Correct answer:
(B)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) While it does appear there's a problem with expert testimony, this specific solution can't be said to be supported since there are other solutiosn that the author might prefer.

(B) Bingo. There must at least be one case out there where reliability of expert testimony wasn't the determining factor, since both sides are frequently competent and the juries can't tell the difference.

(C) Illegal negation. The information presented is in cases where the jurors don't understand the technical information, so this answer choice can't be inferred.

(D) While it does appear there's a problem with expert testimony and jurors, there's no reason to believe that only empanelling scientists is the right move.

(E) Out of scope. Since there's no discussion of their evaluation of technical claims, this answer can't be inferred.

Takeaway/Pattern:
Even if the author believes there's an issue, it can't be inferred that they would support a specific solution.

#officialexplanation