Q16 - The miscarriage of justice

[pistachio2014]

Hi! I can see why B,C,D,E could be ruled out but don't understand why A is the one that strengthens the argument. Thanks!

[aileenann]

So the argument is saying that it was not the science that led some trial to the wrong conclusion but rather a biased provision of data or some conflict of loyalties on the part of the forensic scientist in a particular case.

However, one could argue with this by saying that the conclusion that forensic science did not cause this miscarriage of justice is wrong because forensic science advocates some sort of prejudicial or biased provisioning of information or some sort of special allegiance to the prosecution. In effect, this should make clear that the author is assuming the bias is not somehow introduced by forensic science itself.

So (A) strengthens the argument by turning this assumption into a premise and thus ruling out a potential counterargument.

I hope this helps! I'd love if you could write out your explanations for why (B)-(E) are not good candidate answers, and this would be helpful for your own preparation too

[tamwaiman]

I hope this helps! I'd love if you could write out your explanations for why (B)-(E) are not good candidate answers, and this would be helpful for your own preparation too

I try my best：

(B) weakens the argument, if there are other injustice, the science should be condemned.

(C) what prosecuting lawyers believe is irrelevant. <the typo is corrected.>

(D) the type of the cases is not relevant.

(E) these (many) scientists doesn't help to negate those (some) ones in the argument.

[maryadkins]

Nice job on the wrong answer choices!

[zainrizvi]

Why is (C) relevant? Why does it matter if the prosecutors think if the forensic scientists have an allegiance, as long as forensic scientists dont?

Also the answer explanation for (E) is really confusing me in the superprep book... why is the miscarriage of justice just an assumption in thus argument? I thought it was explicitly stated.. furthermore if forensic scientists did not believe that a miscarriage occurred, wouldnt that weaken the argument as they dont even recognize the injustice? so they should be condemned for it?

[maryadkins]

Why is (C) relevant? Why does it matter if the prosecutors think if the forensic scientists have an allegiance, as long as forensic scientists dont?

Sorry about that--we meant that (C) is IRRELEVANT.

As for (E)--"many" forensic scientists on the LSAT just means some. According to (E), there could be three forensic scientists out there who don't think there was a miscarriage of justice. Do we care about them? We don't even know who they are or where they are. Furthermore, our core is about whether they provide balanced evidence; not about their own opinions as to what constitutes a miscarriage of justice.

You're right that a miscarriage of justice occurred. We're told that.

[carperflorence]

Such intelligent work on the subject and ideal way of writing here. I am really impressed! This post is a helpful overview of the particular topic and very actionable. Interesting approach!

uk dissertation writing service