Reading Comprehension

PT136 · S1 · P2 · Q10 Reliability and Admissibility of Fingerprint Evidence

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension 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

Passage A In this appeal of his criminal conviction, the defendant challenges the fingerprint evidence used against him at trial, claiming that fingerprint identification theory has not been adequately tested.

Topic

The reliability and standards of fingerprint identification as evidence in criminal trials

Framework

Present Debate

Main Point

Passage A argues that while fingerprint identification may lack uniform scientific standards, it is a valuable and reliable form of evidence that courts should continue to accept. Passage B, in contrast, points out the lack of objective standards and the unknown error rates, challenging the premise that fingerprint identification is as reliable as claimed. *The Most Valuable Sentences:* - Passage A: (P3). - Passage B: (P1).

Passage A: Court Response to the Challenge

The defendant in a criminal trial challenges the fingerprint evidence used to convict him, focusing on the lack of scientific testing, absence of studies proving the uniqueness of fingerprints, and undefined error rates. He also criticizes the lack of uniform standards among examiners, especially regarding the number of matching features needed for identification.

P2: Concerns About Standards and Error Rates

The defendant argues that examiners don’t have consistent guidelines and references courtroom testimony that there's no standard for “points of identification.” He emphasizes that error rates for fingerprint misidentification aren't established.

P3: Court Defense of Fingerprint Evidence

Although the court concedes that fingerprint evidence isn’t a “scientific law,” it notes a long history of expert agreement on its reliability and widespread courtroom use. The judge acknowledges that more rigorous standards may be helpful, but sees no cause to reject print evidence entirely due to its track record.

10.

It can be inferred that the author of passage A is

Correct
a judge presiding over an
Why this is right
We can tell from the final sentence of the 3rd paragraph that this passage was written by a judge ("this court sees no reason to reject a form of evidence that has so ably withstood the test of time"). That's actually a good enough reason to pick this answer, since it's the only answer that says that the author is a judge. But the final sentence of the passage suggests that we're at the Appellate (i.e. appeals) level, because this judge is reviewing the trial (lower) court's decision and vindicating it: The trial court below was therefore within its discretion in crediting testimony that ... [blah blah blah]
Skill tested: Inference · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.
74% picked this
a defense attorney arguing an
Attorney vs. Judge
We're looking for judge, not attorney. An attorney can speak about "this court", but not for "this court". An attorney could say, "This court found in Marbury v. Madison that a plaintiff's right to [blah blah blah]". But only a judge can speak as the court, like we see at the end of the 3rd paragraph, "This court sees no reason to reject the fingerprinting evidence".
3% picked this
a prosecutor arguing for the
Attorney vs. Judge
We're looking for judge, not prosecutor. A prosecutor can speak about "this court", but not for "this court". A prosecutor could say, "And thus we ask this court to find the defendant guilty." But only a judge can speak as the court, like we see at the end of the 3rd paragraph, "This court sees no reason to reject the fingerprinting evidence".
13% picked this
a professor of law lecturing
Professor vs. Judge
We're looking for judge, not professor. A professor can speak about "this court", but not for "this court". A professor could say, "This court found in Simpson v. Springfield that a plaintiff's right to [blah blah blah]". But only a judge can speak as the court, like we see at the end of the 3rd paragraph, "This court sees no reason to reject the fingerprinting evidence".
8% picked this
an academic presenting a paper
Academic vs. Judge
We're looking for judge, not academic. An academic can speak about "this court", but not for "this court". An academic could say, "This court found in Simpson v. Springfield that a plaintiff's right to [blah blah blah]". But only a judge can speak as the court, like we see at the end of the 3rd paragraph, "This court sees no reason to reject the fingerprinting evidence".
3% 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