Experts hired to testify in court

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct80% picked this

   Successful politicians are not always the ones who best understand how to help their country. Some lack insight into important political issues but are

   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.

   80%
2. B

   Topic Trap4% picked this

   Trial lawyers often use the techniques employed by actors to influence the emotions of jurors. Many lawyers have studied drama expressly for the

   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%
3. C

   Opposite13% picked this

   The opera singer with the best voice is the appropriate choice even for minor roles, despite the fact that an audience may be more

   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.

   13%
4. D

   Weak Match2% picked this

   It is often best to try to train children with gentle reinforcement of desired behavior, rather than by simply telling them what to do

   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.

   2%
5. E

   Bad Match2% picked this

   Job applicants are usually hired because their skills and training best meet a recognized set of qualifications. Only rarely is a prospective employer convinced

   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%