Court analyst: Courts should not

Answer choices

1. A

   Not an Objection12% picked this

   courts have the authority to admit or exclude any evidence irrespective of what experts have to

   The author is saying that "courts should not allow the use of DNA tests", so it sounds like the author already thinks that courts have the authority to decide which evidence to admit or exclude. If the author were saying "courts must disallow DNA tests because experts don't like it", then we could make this objection that "courts don't have to do what experts say". The author probably believes that courts have the authority to listen / not listen to experts, but she seems to think they should listen to experts. The premise establishes that if there's isn't widespread agreement among scientific experts about a given test, then it's unreasonable for courts to allow that test. The argument is about whether courts should or shouldn't, not about whether they can / can't.

   12%
2. B

   Not an Objection6% picked this

   the standard against which evidence in a criminal case is measured should not

   The standard being cited in the premise is not absolute certainty, so this doesn't object to anything in the argument. The standard cited in the premises is just widespread agreement among scientists.

   6%
3. C

   Correct79% picked this

   experts may agree that the tests are highly reliable while disagreeing about exactly how

   Why this is right

   This speaks to the gap between "there is considerable controversy about how reliable these tests are" vs. "widespread agreement about how reliable a certain test is". The idea it's going for is sort of a Relative vs. Absolute distinction. If you were asking the scientific community, "Are DNA tests reliable?" (absolute wording), then there would be widespread agreement that, "Yes, they're reliable. They're reliable enough to be considered trustworthy evidence." Meanwhile if you asked the scientists, "How reliable are DNA tests?" (relative wording), then there would be considerable controversy over whether they are 97% reliable or 99% reliable. This works as an objection because it reconciles the evidence with the anti-conclusion. We can say, "Yes there's controversy about precisely how reliable these tests are, but ... there is widespread agreement that they are highly reliable, which means that shouldn't be a reason that we tell courts to disallow DNA tests as evidence".

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

   79%
4. D

   Strengthens, if anything3% picked this

   data should not be admitted as evidence in a court of law without scientific witnesses having agreed about

   This answer seems to align with the author's final sentence.

   3%
5. E

   Out of Scope: noncriminal cases1% picked this

   there are also controversies about reliability of evidence in

   This argument is only about whether or not DNA tests should be used in criminal cases. The fact that in the world non-criminal law there are sometimes controversies about the reliability of evidence doesn't to anything to inform us or affect this conversation.

   1%