Logical Reasoning

PT105 · S4 · Q16 The miscarriage of justice in

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

The miscarriage of justice in the Barker case was due to the mistaken views held by some of the forensic scientists involved in the case, who believed that they owed allegiance only to the prosecuting lawyers.

Conclusion (Hence)

It's not forensic evidence in general that should be condemned for this injustice (in the Barker case).

Evidence

The injustice in the Barker case was due to the fact that some of the forensic scientists believed they owed allegiance only to prosecuting lawyers, and failed to provide evidence impartially to both the defense and the prosecution.

Evaluate

In order for us to Strengthen this, we might need to think about how it could be weakened.

Given that ... the injustice in this case came from some forensic scientists, who were hired by the prosecution, being "loyal" to them and not trying to impartially provide testimony to both defense and prosecution,

How could we argue that ... It is forensic evidence in general that should be blamed for this?

We'd probably have to argue that "this kinda thing happens all the time". It's inherent to forensic evidence. It's human nature for forensic witnesses to skew their testimony towards whichever lawyer brought them in.

The author's argument is basically, It's similar to arguing, . The counterargument is,

Goal

Since the way we'd object to this argument is to say, , that means that we could strengthen the argument by going the other way.

Look for something like, .

16.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

  1. Correct

    Most forensic scientists acknowledge a

    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.

    73% picked this

  2. The type of injustice that

    Weakens

    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% picked this

  3. Most prosecuting lawyers believe that

    Mixed Impact

    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% picked this

  4. Many instances of injustice in

    Weak / Unclear Impact

    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.

    4% picked this

  5. Many forensic scientists do not

    Weakens, if Anything

    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% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free