Logical Reasoning

PT134 · S1 · Q19 Court analyst: Courts should not

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

Court analyst: Courts should not allow the use of DNA tests in criminal cases.

Conclusion (should)

Court shouldn't allow DNA tests in criminal cases.

Evidence

If there isn't widespread agreement in the scientific community about how reliable a test is, then courts shouldn't allow evidence from that test.

There is considerable controversy among experts about how reliable DNA tests are.

Evaluate

The author cites a conditional rule whose right side is a good match for the conclusion: matches well enough with .

Has the author established the trigger of this rule, that ?

She said that .

Could we argue that even though there exists considerably controversy it could still be true that there's widespread agreement?

I suppose so. There's widespread agreement in the scientific community that COVID vaccines are safe enough and important to ending the pandemic, but there still exists controversy. There's widespread agreement in the scientific community that Darwin's evolutionary theory is correct and that human-influenced global warming is a dire problem, but there's still controversy.

Goal

Find an answer that complains about a gap between "there exists considerable controversy" and "there isn't widespread agreement". Or find any other answer that allows us to argue that courts should be allowed to use DNA tests.

19.

The court analyst's reasoning is flawed because it fails to take into account that

  1. courts have the authority to

    Not an Objection

    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% picked this

  2. the standard against which evidence

    Not an Objection

    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% picked this

  3. Correct

    experts may agree that the

    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.

    78% picked this

  4. data should not be admitted

    Strengthens, if anything

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

    3% picked this

  5. there are also controversies about

    Out of Scope: noncriminal cases

    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% 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