Logical Reasoning

PT126 · S4 · Q20 People who have specialized knowledge

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

People who have specialized knowledge about a scientific or technical issue are systematically excluded from juries for trials where that issue is relevant.

Conclusion (Thus)

A jury trial is not a fair means of settling disputes involving scientific or technical issues.

Evidence

People with specialized knowledge about the issues are excluded from juries, if that issue is relevant.

Evaluate

We can apply our generic Weaken template to this argument:

GIVEN THAT people with specialized knowledge are excluded from juries if the case involves that specialty,

HOW CAN WE ARGUE THAT jury trials are still fair, when they deal with specialized subjects/

To weaken the argument, we can counter the negative perception of excluding specialists or argue that fairness is achieved through other means.

Goal

Identify an answer choice that supports the idea of fairness in jury trials by highlighting the benefits of excluding specialists or reinforcing the ability of jurors to reach fair decisions.

20.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

  1. The more complicated the issue

    Strengthens

    This suggests regular jurors struggle with complex issues, implying that excluding specialists worsens trial fairness by leaving juries ill-equipped, thereby supporting the need for specialists.

    15% picked this

  2. Correct

    The more a juror knows

    Why this is right

    This argues that jurors with specialized knowledge are more likely to be prejudiced, suggesting that excluding them may actually enhance fairness by removing potential bias, countering the argument against jury trials.

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

    76% picked this

  3. Appointing an impartial arbitrator is

    Irrelevant

    This introduces arbitrators, which are outside the scope of the discussion focused on jury trials, making it an irrelevant consideration here.

    3% picked this

  4. Experts who give testimony on

    No Impact

    This claims expert witnesses often hedge their conclusions, but this doesn’t directly address whether excluding specialists from juries makes trials fair or unfair.

    5% picked this

  5. Expert witnesses in specialized fields

    Irrelevant

    This highlights the costs of expert witnesses, which doesn’t relate to the inclusion of knowledgeable individuals on juries, thus straying from the core claim about trial fairness.

    1% 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