- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8917
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Sun Jul 09, 2017 11:12 am
#37090
Complete Question Explanation
Specific Reference, Must Be True, Author's Perspective. The correct answer choice is (B).
For this Specific Reference question, we need to go back to the lines it refers us to so that we have a clear idea of what's being asked. Lines 39-43 say "And adverse parties can test the credibility and reliability of proffered literature by subjecting expert witness to the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth
cross-examination." These lines seem to be basically saying that cross-examination is a great way of testing the credibility of expert witnesses. This suggests that the author thinks that the trial system is a good way of determining whether the scientific knowledge coming from these witnesses is reliable.
The question asks us, based on these lines, which of the claims made by the author of passage A would the author of passage B be most likely to take issue (or disagree) with. So we're looking for an answer choice that is both a statement from passage A, as well as a statement that would seem to run counter to the idea that cross-examination is a good way of determining whether the scientific knowledge coming from expert witnesses is credible and reliable.
Answer choice (A): We don't have any evidence that the author of passage B would disagree with this statement (which is basically the main point of passage A). Passage B argues that appellate courts should not conduct their own independent research, but that is a different issue from passage A, which is arguing that there should not be an absolute prohibition on trial judges conducting independent research.
Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. Passage A says that the "adversarial system is particularly ill-suited to handling specialized knowledge" because the "two parties prescreen and compensate expert witnesses, which virtually ensures conflicting partisan testimony" (lines 13-17). So the author of passage A does not think that the trial system is a good way to determine whether or not scientific information from expert witnesses is credible. Since, as discussed above, the author of passage B seems to think that the trial system is a good way to vet the testimony from expert witnesses, the author of passage B would be most likely to take issue with this statement.
Answer choice (C): The discussion of cross-examination in passage B does not refer to the influence that these decisions may influence over future cases and, therefore, we do not know what the author thinks of this statement.
Answer choice (D): The author of passage A doesn't exactly say that erroneous decisions can be readily exposed by third parties. In any event, there's no reason to think that the author of passage B would disagree with this statement since he seems to think that even just having 2 parties is enough to weed out bad information.
Answer choice (E): Passage B's discussion of cross-examination as a tool for testing the credibility of expert witnesses isn't really relevant as to whether a trial provides structure that guides potential independent research. Rather, Passage B suggests that the trial itself can be used for fact-checking so things like independent research aren't really needed.
Specific Reference, Must Be True, Author's Perspective. The correct answer choice is (B).
For this Specific Reference question, we need to go back to the lines it refers us to so that we have a clear idea of what's being asked. Lines 39-43 say "And adverse parties can test the credibility and reliability of proffered literature by subjecting expert witness to the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth
cross-examination." These lines seem to be basically saying that cross-examination is a great way of testing the credibility of expert witnesses. This suggests that the author thinks that the trial system is a good way of determining whether the scientific knowledge coming from these witnesses is reliable. The question asks us, based on these lines, which of the claims made by the author of passage A would the author of passage B be most likely to take issue (or disagree) with. So we're looking for an answer choice that is both a statement from passage A, as well as a statement that would seem to run counter to the idea that cross-examination is a good way of determining whether the scientific knowledge coming from expert witnesses is credible and reliable.
Answer choice (A): We don't have any evidence that the author of passage B would disagree with this statement (which is basically the main point of passage A). Passage B argues that appellate courts should not conduct their own independent research, but that is a different issue from passage A, which is arguing that there should not be an absolute prohibition on trial judges conducting independent research.
Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. Passage A says that the "adversarial system is particularly ill-suited to handling specialized knowledge" because the "two parties prescreen and compensate expert witnesses, which virtually ensures conflicting partisan testimony" (lines 13-17). So the author of passage A does not think that the trial system is a good way to determine whether or not scientific information from expert witnesses is credible. Since, as discussed above, the author of passage B seems to think that the trial system is a good way to vet the testimony from expert witnesses, the author of passage B would be most likely to take issue with this statement.
Answer choice (C): The discussion of cross-examination in passage B does not refer to the influence that these decisions may influence over future cases and, therefore, we do not know what the author thinks of this statement.
Answer choice (D): The author of passage A doesn't exactly say that erroneous decisions can be readily exposed by third parties. In any event, there's no reason to think that the author of passage B would disagree with this statement since he seems to think that even just having 2 parties is enough to weed out bad information.
Answer choice (E): Passage B's discussion of cross-examination as a tool for testing the credibility of expert witnesses isn't really relevant as to whether a trial provides structure that guides potential independent research. Rather, Passage B suggests that the trial itself can be used for fact-checking so things like independent research aren't really needed.
