LSAT Explanation PT 42, S2, Q20: People who have specialized knowledge about

LSAT Question Stem

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument? 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Weaken question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is B. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

We are dealing with a Weaken question, which means we need to find an answer choice that undermines the conclusion or the relationship between the premises and the conclusion, without attacking the premises themselves.

The passage's argument can be broken down as follows:

Premise: People with specialized knowledge about a scientific or technical issue are systematically excluded from juries for trials where that issue is relevant.

Conclusion: Trial by jury is not a fair means of settling disputes involving such issues.

To make this more relatable, imagine a trial involving a complex medical issue. The argument suggests that because people with medical expertise are excluded from the jury, the trial is not fair.

An "Evaluate" question for this argument would be: "Does the exclusion of jurors with specialized knowledge actually make the trial less fair?"

Now let's discuss the answer choices:

a) This answer choice actually strengthens the conclusion, suggesting that jurors without specialized knowledge may struggle to comprehend the testimony. This would support the idea that trial by jury is not a fair means of settling disputes involving complex issues.

b) This is the correct answer choice. If having specialized knowledge makes a juror more likely to be biased in favor of one party, then excluding such jurors actually makes the trial more fair, not less. This weakens the conclusion that trial by jury is not a fair means of settling disputes involving complex issues.

c) This answer choice discusses the fairness of appointing an impartial arbitrator, which is not relevant to the fairness of trial by jury. It doesn't weaken the argument.

d) This answer choice focuses on expert witnesses and their tendency to discuss the possibility of error. It doesn't address the fairness of excluding jurors with specialized knowledge, so it doesn't weaken the argument.

e) This answer choice talks about the high fees of expert witnesses, which is not directly related to the fairness of excluding jurors with specialized knowledge. It doesn't weaken the argument.

In conclusion, the correct answer is (b), as it weakens the argument by suggesting that excluding jurors with specialized knowledge may actually make the trial more fair by reducing the likelihood of bias.