- Sat May 30, 2020 4:27 am
Hi PowerScore Staff,
I'm a bit confused about why (B) is wrong.
The question asks us: if judges conduct their own research, it can be inferred that both authors would agree that research...?
(B) says: if judges conduct their own research, that research "is typically confined to standard, reliable sources".
I found that lines 6-9 in passage A ("fear that judges ... may wind up using ... discredited scientific materials") and lines 39-43 in passage B ("adverse parties can test the credibility and reliability of the literature") seem to support (B), but I'm not sure if that's a decent inference.
During review, I've come up with another interpretation of both passages, and I want to confirm if my interpretation is correct:
The author of passage A seems to suggest that judges should not fear conducting their own research due to the fact that they may end up finding the wrong materials, because the trial structure helps correct this error, and the author of passage B seems to suggest that it's the "testimony and cross examination" that makes independent research allowed at a trial level. So it seems like both passage A and passage B focus on "testimony and cross examination". They seem to think that "since we have testimony and cross examination at trial, we don't need to worry about trial judges finding the wrong materials during their research". And that's why (A) "should be constrained by the structure of a trial" is correct. The "structure" refers to "testimony and cross examination".
Am I interpreting the passage correct?