People who have specialized knowledge

Answer choices

1. A

   Strengthens15% picked this

   The more complicated the issue being litigated, the less likely it is that a juror without specialized knowledge of the field involved will be

   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%
2. B

   Correct76% picked this

   The more a juror knows about a particular scientific or technical issue involved in a trial, the more likely it is that the juror

   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%
3. C

   Irrelevant3% picked this

   Appointing an impartial arbitrator is not a fair means of settling disputes involving scientific or technical issues, because arbitrators tend to favor settlements in

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

   3%
4. D

   No Impact5% picked this

   Experts who give testimony on scientific or technical issues tend to hedge their conclusions by discussing

   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%
5. E

   Irrelevant1% picked this

   Expert witnesses in specialized fields often command fees that are so high that many people involved in litigation

   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%