Most jurors will be more inclined to reach a verdict favorable to one side if that side's case is based...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
Most jurors will be more inclined to reach a verdict favorable to one side if that side's case is based primarily on eyewitness testimony rather than on physical evidence backed by expert scientific testimony. Surprisingly, studies involving jurors in mock trials have found that this tendency survives even for those jurors who understand that eyewitness testimony is generally less reliable than is physical evidence backed by expert testimony.
Which of the following would, if true, most help to explain the surprising phenomenon described above?
Passage Analysis:
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| Most jurors will be more inclined to reach a verdict favorable to one side if that side's case is based primarily on eyewitness testimony rather than on physical evidence backed by expert scientific testimony. |
|
| Surprisingly, studies involving jurors in mock trials have found that this tendency survives even for those jurors who understand that eyewitness testimony is generally less reliable than is physical evidence backed by expert testimony. |
|
Argument Flow:
"The argument starts by presenting a general observation about juror behavior, then adds a surprising twist that creates a paradox needing explanation"
Main Conclusion:
"There's a surprising phenomenon where jurors prefer eyewitness testimony even when they know it's less reliable than scientific evidence"
Logical Structure:
"This isn't a traditional argument with premises leading to a conclusion, but rather a presentation of a puzzling phenomenon that sets up the need for an explanation in the question stem"
Prethinking:
Question type:
Paradox - We need to explain why jurors favor eyewitness testimony over scientific evidence even when they know scientific evidence is more reliable
Precision of Claims
The key claims involve comparison of juror preferences (eyewitness vs scientific evidence), knowledge about reliability (jurors understand scientific evidence is more reliable), and behavior that contradicts knowledge (still preferring eyewitness testimony)
Strategy
For paradox questions, we need to find explanations that resolve the apparent contradiction. The paradox here is: jurors know scientific evidence is more reliable, yet they still prefer eyewitness testimony. We need to identify reasons why jurors might act against their knowledge about reliability - perhaps there are other factors that make eyewitness testimony more appealing despite being less reliable
This discusses differences between mock trials and real trials regarding deliberation time. However, the passage specifically states that the phenomenon occurs in mock trials, and this choice doesn't explain why jurors would prefer less reliable evidence even when they know it's less reliable. The amount of deliberation time doesn't resolve the paradox about acting against their knowledge of reliability.
This suggests jurors view expert witnesses as biased because they testify for one side. While this could make scientific evidence less appealing, it doesn't specifically explain why jurors who understand that scientific evidence is more reliable would still prefer eyewitness testimony. The choice addresses bias concerns but doesn't resolve why informed jurors act against their knowledge.
This explains that eyewitness credibility depends on personal characteristics like age and appearance. While this shows factors that influence eyewitness evaluation, it doesn't explain why jurors who know scientific evidence is more reliable would still prefer eyewitness testimony. It describes how eyewitnesses are evaluated but doesn't resolve the paradox.
This directly explains the paradox. Even though these jurors understand that eyewitness testimony is generally less reliable than scientific evidence, they incorrectly believe they personally are better than average at determining when an eyewitness is reliable. This overconfidence bias explains why they act against their general knowledge - they think their individual judgment can overcome the general unreliability. This perfectly resolves why informed jurors still prefer eyewitness testimony.
This states that complex physical evidence has less influence on jurors. However, this doesn't explain the specific paradox about jurors who understand reliability differences still preferring eyewitness testimony. It addresses complexity issues but doesn't resolve why informed jurors act against their knowledge about relative reliability.