Critical Reasoning

People who have specialized knowledge about a scientific or technical issue are systematically excluded from the trials where the issue is relevant. Thus, trial by jury is not a fair means of settling disputes involving such issues.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

A) The more complicated the issue being litigated, the less likely it is that a juror without specialized knowledge of the field involved will be able to comprehend the testimony being given.

B) The more a juror knows about a particular scientific or technical issue involved in a trial, the more likely it is that the juror will be prejudiced in favor of one of the litigating parties before the trial begins.

C) Appointing an impartial arbitrator is not a fair means of settling disputes involving scientific or technical issues, because arbitrators tend to favor settlements in which both parties compromise on the issue.

D) Experts who give testimony on scientific or technical issues tend to hedge their conclusions by discussing the possibility of errors.

E) Expert witnesses in specialized fields often command fees that are so high that many people involved in litigation cannot afford their services.

OA to follow.

IMO answer is C

IMO A

I would go for Option B.
It makes a strong point against jurors with specific knowledge.

Whats the OA?

OA is B. Could you please explain the answer. I am not able to figure out why B is the answer.

As per the text, people with specific knowledge are not present during trials.
Thus the trial by jury is not fair.

Anything which can show that specific knowledge holders' presence doesnt aid in a fair trial
will duly weaken the argument.

Option A: A juror without special knowledge will be less likely to comprehend the testimony.
hence not A. It clearly says that specific knowledge is important to comprehend. It strengthens the argument.

Option B: It says that specific knowledge won't be helpful and would instead result in a biased trial. It clearly serves to weaken the argument
implying that people with specific knowledge arent needed. Thus it weakens the argument.

Option C: Impartial arbitrator has nothing to speak about people with specific knowledge and their inclusion in the jury of the trial.

Option D and Option E are clearly out.

Hence the answer Option B.

Hope it helps.

Thanks!

@aks.anupam: can you hit the thanks button.

sanp_l wrote:@aks.anupam: can you hit the thanks button.

Hahahaha..Now it reminds me of the importance of buzzing the thanks button!!!

Recently sometiime back I asked Sandy to Buzz the thanks button & now that chain is extending...

anupam..do press that button..He deserves that!!