Logical reasoning PrepTest 146 · Section 3 · Question 8

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Argument Evaluation

Stimulus Summary:
Phenomenon Ð Jurors regard in-court scientific evidence as more credible than the same evidence outside of a courtroom
Explanation Ð Judges prescreen this evidence and only allow it in if its credible

Answer Anticipation:
Phenomenon/Explanation questions generally fail to rule out alternatives, and thus the correct answers tend to bring them up. And that's certainly possible here—the correct answer could ask about an alternative explanation for why the jurors view in-court scientific evidence as comparably credible.

However, there's reason to believe that this won't be the case here—the Legal Theorists state that the effect is "primarily" due to the Judge screening the evidence. As such, there could be other factors and the conclusion could still hold. Here, then, the correct answer is likely to address the explanation itself. And that explanation does require an assumption—that the jurors are aware that the Judge is serving in this capacity. We know that what people know/think/believe is relevant on the LSAT, so this anticipation plays into a trend we've seen many times.

So while we should leave ourselves open to a potential answer choice about another primary factor in the jurors's views towards this evidence, it's much more likely we'll see an answer asking at that assumption.

Answer Explanation:
If the jurors are aware that the Judge's have appraised the scientific evidence, then that lends credence to it serving as an explanation for their view of its increased credibility. If they're not aware, then the Judge serving as a gatekeeper can't explain why the jurors find that same evidence more credible in the courtroom than out.

Key Takeaway:
Phenomenon/explanation passages frequently have answers that address alternative explanations. However, when the conclusion of the argument is that an explanation is partial (including it's a "primary" explanation—which suggests there is at least a secondary one), then alternatives are less likely to feature. Instead, focus on any assumptions made in reaching the explanation itself.

Incorrect. This answer does hint at an alternative explanation, but it falls flat in two ways. First, it doesn't state what influence other jurors might have—do they increase perceived credibility, or do they influence along some other metric? Second, even if the perceived credibility is influenced by other jurors, there's no indication that this calls into question the Judge's influence as the primary one.

Incorrect. This answer deals with experts, not scientific evidence, so it doesn't address the full scope of the argument.

Incorrect. Similar to (B), this answer suggests a potential alternative explanation. However, it fails in that capacity since it doesn't address that the same evidence is perceived as more credible when presented in the courtroom—presumably, their scientific knowledge doesn't change when they walk through that metal detector.

Incorrect. This answer would address how jurors view information presented in the courtroom, but it wouldn't address the comparative credibility they give it compared to the same evidence encountered out of the courtroom. In fact, if there is a dispute between experts, it's surprising that they don't view that evidence as less credible.