Logical Reasoning

PT117 · S2 · Q12 Experts hired to testify in court

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

Experts hired to testify in court need to know how to make convincing presentations.

Facts

Expert witnesses need to make convincing presentations, because juries evaluate them mainly by their ability to present their reasoning steps clearly and confidently.

Because of this, lawyers will sometimes hire an expert witness who is less of an expert than others in their field but better than average at producing skilled testimony.

Principle Illustrated

This passage seems to be stressing a Causal Difference-Maker and its counterintuitive result. Because what matters most in hiring an expert witness is their ability to present well to a jury, we see that people get hired who are superficially a worse pick (they're less of an expert) but meaningfully a better pick (they're more likely to produce convincing testimony).

Goal

If we're subtracting out the topic to make this more general and portable, we probably want something like this:

1. ostensibly, you'd think that in picking an X you're looking to max out quality A 2. but really quality B is what matters more 3. so sometimes people pick X's that aren't as good at A but are better at B

12.

Which one of the following most closely conforms to the principle illustrated by the passage above?

  1. Correct

    Successful politicians are not always

    Why this is right

    You'd think the most important quality in a successful expert witness is expertise. You'd think the most important quality in a successful politician is best understanding how to help their country. But in reality, some of the best expert witnesses aren't the biggest experts, they just are really good at communicating their ideas to the jury. But in reality, some of the best politicians aren't the best at helping their country (they lack insight into important political experts), they just are really good at communicating their ideas to the voters (good at conducting an election campaign). I'm certainly not in love with this answer, but it seems to be the best match for 1. ostensibly, you'd think that in picking an X you're looking to max out quality A 2. but really quality B is what matters more 3. so sometimes people pick X's that aren't as good at A but are better at B

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

    81% picked this

  2. Trial lawyers often use the

    Topic Trap

    Topic Trap: courtroom Missing "Quality A vs. Quality B" We should immediately be sketched out by recycled topic (using a similar topic will almost always be a trait of an incorrect answer, on Parallel or Analogy tasks). This doesn't have the "expertise vs. good presenting skills: which quality matter more" principle. It's just saying, "here's a trait that people want and here's how they go about getting it".

    4% picked this

  3. The opera singer with the

    Opposite

    This has a similar "quality A vs. quality B" thing going on, but in the original passage the quality that was stressed / picked was the surprising / less obvious quality. You'd think that if we're picking an opera singer, we'd care most about "best voice", and that's exactly what this author ends up going with. A matching answer would be endorsing / suggesting / showcasing a singer who doesn't have the best voice, but does have some secondary quality that ends up mattering more.

    12% picked this

  4. It is often best to

    Weak Match

    This presents two different strategies / approaches, not two different qualities / talents. And it lacks any sense of one of those two things being the more obvious, more apparent, more default thing that you'd assume we care about.

    1% picked this

  5. Job applicants are usually hired

    Bad Match

    You'd think that we pick whom to hire based on being most convinced that their skills and training match the job qualifications we're looking for. And ... that's apparently exactly what happens. It's rare that job applicants aren't picked on that most obvious quality. This answer doesn't even identify a secondary quality that ends up being more important. It just says that sometimes we pick someone who isn't the best at the primary quality and find a way to deal with it.

    2% 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