Studies of the reliability of eyewitness

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct87% picked this

   The confidence people have in what they remember having seen is affected by their awareness of what other

   Why this is right

   This at least connects language in the second sentence to the language in the third sentence, which is a conclusion ("Therefore") based on that second sentence. If the author thinks that the 2nd sentence implies the 3rd sentence, then she assumes some connective tissue there. This answer supplies some of that -- "awareness of what other people claim to have seen" matches up with overhearing how some other eyewitness assesses the police lineup. and "affecting the confidence people have in what they remember" matches with the second sentences notion that certain factors can increase or undermine confidence without altering accuracy of identification. This answer doesn't make it any clearer why we care whether confidence is affected (if police / judges know that confidence has little correlation with accuracy, then confidence shouldn't really matter... but common sense would tell us that we do tend to believe someone more if they seem more confident in what they're saying), but the answer still does the best job of providing the "1/2 Premise, 1/2 Conclusion" language we want in a correct answer to a Principle question. This ends up being the only answer connected to whether or not witnesses can hear each other (whether they're aware of each other's responses).

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

   87%
2. B

   Out of Scope: only one suspect1% picked this

   Unless an eyewitness is confronted with more than one suspect at a time, the accuracy of his or

   This principle is worried about whether eyewitnesses will view only one suspect at a time vs. be confronted with more than one suspect at a time (like in a police lineup). That has nothing to do with the conversation in this paragraph, which is about police lineups -- more than one suspect at a time -- and is only distinguishing between whether only one eyewitness is present for the lineup or more than one eyewitness is present (enabling the eyewitnesses to hear each other's identifications)

   1%
3. C

   Out of Scope: several identify same2% picked this

   If several eyewitnesses all identify the same suspect in a lineup, it is more likely that the suspect committed the crime than if

   This principle deals with a scenario in which several eyewitnesses all pick the same dude out of the lineup (we have no idea if they were able to hear each other's picks or not). The other half deals with how likely it is that the suspect committed the crime. Neither of those ideas matches up with language from a Premise or from the Conclusion.

   2%
4. D

   No Impact4% picked this

   Police officers are more interested in the confidence witnesses have when testifying than in the

   First of all, this is a crazy idea, right? Police officers are more interested in confidence than accuracy of testimony? We should be very nervous about picking such a counterintuitive notion, unless we think the argument offered was cuckoo and thus should be justified with a crazy principle. Would this principle give police officers a reason to prevent lineups in which eyewitnesses can hear each other's picks? Nope, it's either neutral towards that idea or it would actually prefer the idea of allowing eyewitnesses to hear each other because that might be more likely to increase their collective confidence.

   4%
5. E

   Unrelated to Goal6% picked this

   The accuracy of an eyewitness account is doubtful if the eyewitness contradicts what other eyewitnesses

   This principle doesn't seem to have anything to do with persuading police to avoid lineups where witnesses can hear each other. This is just talking about what happens when one eyewitness account conflicts with another. It doesn't differentiate between situations in which witnesses can / can't hear each other.

   6%