The miscarriage of justice in

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct74% picked this

   Most forensic scientists acknowledge a professional obligation to provide evidence impartially to both the defense

   Why this is right

   This is strengthening the idea that the injustice in this case was an exception, an anomaly. It wasn't something typical of forensic evidence in general. After all, most forensic scientists know they are obliged to provide evidence impartially to both the defense and the prosecution. The fact that the forensic scientists in the Barker case failed to provide impartial evidence is an outlier, not the norm for the industry.

   Skill tested: Strengthen · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   74%
2. B

   Weakens8% picked this

   The type of injustice that occurred in the Barker case has occurred in other

   This is the opposite of what we were looking for. This is moving away from "these were a couple bad apples / not typical for the field" and moving towards "this kinda thing happens a lot in the world of forensic evidence".

   8%
3. C

   Mixed Impact10% picked this

   Most prosecuting lawyers believe that forensic scientists owe a special allegiance

   In one sense, we might look at this and think, "Aha! This strengthens. We shouldn't be blaming forensic evidence in general. We should be blaming prosecuting lawyers. They're the ones who are mainly responsible for the fact that forensic witnesses act too loyal to one side." But in another sense, we could look at this and think, "This weakens. There is an inherent problem with forensic evidence, because the prosecutors that use it by enlarge think that a forensic witness should be giving testimony that's partial to their side." And then in another sense, we could be thinking, "Who cares what prosecutors believe or even what they desire? We only care about what forensic witnesses believe, when it comes to loyalty vs. impartiality. That's how we'll assess whether the forensic scientists in the Barker case were representative samples or outliers in the field."

   10%
4. D

   Weak / Unclear Impact3% picked this

   Many instances of injustice in court cases are not of the same type as that which occurred

   Insofar as this answer is moving in the direction of, "What happened in the Barker case is unusual / not what happens elsewhere", this strengthens. But it's so wispy, because "many" is a very soft quantity, and it's also not clear that this answer is even talking about court cases that involve forensic evidence, so it could be wholly out of scope.

   3%
5. E

   Weakens, if Anything5% picked this

   Many forensic scientists do not believe that any miscarriage of justice occurred in

   The author clearly believes injustice occurred in the Barker case. If forensic scientists don't see any problem with what happened, then that would actually help us argue that this is a problem with forensic evidence in general. Forensic scientists are so convinced that they should be loyal to the side that hired them that they think the behavior of the scientists in the Barker case was totally normal and acceptable.

   5%