PrepTest 126

Incorrect. This answer strengthens the argument by suggesting jurors lacking technical knowledge will not be able to understand testimony, thus suggesting the trial won't be fair.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
People who are experts on technical issues/science are excluded from juries, so juries are a bad way to solve cases with these issues.

Answer Anticipation:
This argument uses the lack of expertise on a jury to reach a conclusion that the jury verdicts that include issues of a technical/scientific nature are unfair. That's a jump that isn't established in the argument. Therefore, any answer that suggests such expertise on the jury isn't required for a fair trial will weaken this argument.

Answer Explanation:
Note the way this answer is phrased—the more expertise one has, the more likely one is to be prejudiced. That seems like it's not addressing a jury where someone doesn't have expertise. However, these types of proportional relationships work in both directions—if more expertise means more likelihood of prejudice, then less expertise must mean a lower likelihood of bias. If that's the case, then getting a jury with no expertise will result in a jury with the lowest likelihood of bias—suggesting a fair trial is possible, undercutting the argument.

Key Takeaway:
When an argument makes a jump between two ideas, it can be weakened by answers that disconnect those ideas, either directly or by bringing up examples of the two being unrelated.

Incorrect. An alternative also being unfair doesn't address whether a given method is also unfair, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. This answer is about experts testifying, not serving on juries, so it's out of scope.

Incorrect. This answer brings up another way that a trial may not be fair, which doesn't speak to whether the technical expertise of juries is determinative of a fair trial. This answer is therefore out of scope.