Trial by Jury

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

C: Trial by jury is not a fair means of settling disputes involving scientific or technical issues. Evidence: Those with science or technical expertise are excluded from trials concerning those issues.

What we need is an to find an answer that tells us "even though people with special knowledge of a scientific or technical issue are excluded from juries the trial can still be fair.

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.
This does the opposite of what we want. It makes it worse to exclude those with technical expertise.

(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.
This is exactly what we want! Not only is is okay to exclude people with technical expertise, it actually is necessary to exclude them in order to have a fair trial.

(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 issues.
This is irrelevant to the conclusion.

(D)Experts who give testimony on scientific or technical issues tend to hedge their conclusions by discussing the possibility of error
This is irrelevant. We are not talking about experts who testify, but rather about jurors.

(E) Expert witnesses in specialized fields often command fees that are so high that many people involved in litigation cannot afford their services.
This is also about experts who testify and is not relevant to the discussion at hand.

Source: Powerscore GMAT Critical Reasoning Bible, page 123, Question# 3

[spoiler]OA : B[/spoiler]

I am unable to follow the explanation in the book.
Alternative Approach will be highly appreciated.

David@VeritasPrep wrote:

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

C: Trial by jury is not a fair means of settling disputes involving scientific or technical issues. Evidence: Those with science or technical expertise are excluded from trials concerning those issues.

What we need is an to find an answer that tells us "even though people with special knowledge of a scientific or technical issue are excluded from juries the trial can still be fair.

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.
This does the opposite of what we want. It makes it worse to exclude those with technical expertise.

(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.
This is exactly what we want! Not only is is okay to exclude people with technical expertise, it actually is necessary to exclude them in order to have a fair trial.

(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 issues.
This is irrelevant to the conclusion.

(D)Experts who give testimony on scientific or technical issues tend to hedge their conclusions by discussing the possibility of error
This is irrelevant. We are not talking about experts who testify, but rather about jurors.

(E) Expert witnesses in specialized fields often command fees that are so high that many people involved in litigation cannot afford their services.
This is also about experts who testify and is not relevant to the discussion at hand.

Source: Powerscore GMAT Critical Reasoning Bible, page 123, Question# 3

[spoiler]OA : B[/spoiler]

I am unable to follow the explanation in the book.
Alternative Approach will be highly appreciated.