People who have specialized knowledge about a scientific or technical issue are systematically excluded from juries f...

Kath on September 28 at 05:57PM

CDE

Could you explain CDE? I thought these answer choices implies that expertise in jury is not fair. Is “arbitrator” a out-of-scope word? I think if the experts hedge the conclusion on the possibility of error, then the conclusion might not be fair.

1 Reply

on September 30 at 06:33PM

Hello @Kath,

Premise: People who have specialized knowledge in a field are excluded from juries for trials in which that field is relevant.

Conclusion: Jury trials are not fair in these cases, because the experts are excluded.

If we want to weaken the argument, we need to show that experts should be excluded in order to keep the trial fair.

You asked about C, D, and E.

C presents impartial arbitration, seemingly as an alternative to jury trials which is also unfair. Just because arbitration is not necessarily fair, that does not mean that juries are. This is why it does not weaken the conclusion. Out of scope is a good way to describe it.

I believe that D actually strengthens the argument. It would likely be a positive thing for the trial if some of the jurors understood the possibility of error. This type of knowledge would make the trial more fair. Otherwise, this possibility of error is just being ignored. If D is true, then excluding these experts from the jury might make the trial unfair.

E is also out of scope. We are talking about jurors, not expert witnesses.

B is correct, because it shows that experts are likely to be prejudiced against one of the litigating parties. Therefore, they should be excluded.