- Mon Jul 13, 2020 4:19 pm
You've correctly identified the conclusion, so nicely done there! It's a (negative) causal conclusion, that forensic science did NOT cause the injustice in the Barker case.
Answer choice A strengthens that conclusion because it gives some evidence that the individual scientists in the Barker case were not representative of forensic scientists in general, and therefore that we cannot blame forensic science in a general sense for what happened in the Barker case. After all, most forensic scientists wouldn't have endorsed what those scientists did, so the injustice in the Barker case is less likely to have stemmed from a problem with forensic science in general, and more likely to have happened because of a problem with the personal ethics of those individual scientists in the Barker case (unrelated to forensic science).
Answer choice B doesn't shed any light on the specific cause of injustice in the other cases mentioned, so it cannot shed any light on the cause of the injustice in the Barker case.
Answer choice C cannot help us with the conclusion, because we cannot know how, or even if, most prosecutors' beliefs would affect forensic scientists' beliefs, particularly in this one single Barker case.
Answer choice D is irrelevant. We want to know about the cause of the type of injustice that occurred in the Barker case, not about whether other types of injustices occur in other cases.
Answer choice E is also irrelevant. The conclusion is about what caused the injustice in the Barker case, not about whether or not there was actually an injustice that occurred, let alone about whether certain scientists do or do not believe such an injustice occurred.
Let us know if this clears up your questions on this one!