awkward follows you like a beer chasing a shot of tequila.
expert witness:ten times, and in controlled circumstances, a single drop of the defendants blood was allowed to fall onto the fabric. And in all ten cases the stained area was much less than the expected 9.5cm. In fact the stained area was always between 4.5 adn 4.8 cm. I conclude that a single drop of the defendants blood stains much less than 9.5cm of the fabric.Which one of the following, if true, most undermines the value of the evidence for the expert witness's conclusion?C: In an eleventh test drop of the defendants blood, the area stained was also less than 9.5cm-this time staining 9.3cmB: Expert witnesses have sometimes been known to fudge their data to accord with the prosecution's case.Since B is wrong I believe that it is do to its use of "sometimes", which would not necesarily indicate this witness. However, C doesn't really appear to undermine the conclusion either. All it states is that the blood stained more, which is great, but still doesn't change the fact that the conclusion is about staining much less than 9.5. Although 9.3 is certianly more than 4.8cm it could still be considered "much less" with the definition of "much less" being undefined.My apologies if my logic isn't clear, anyways, anyone got any ideas?
you both missed B in relation to the stimulus. the expert witness supports the defendant's case (the blood stained much less than the expected amount).
I agree with the fact that 9.3cm isn't as clearly "much less" than 9.5cm.
An alternative explanation for why choice C most weakens the conclusion might be that the conclusion states that the defendant's blood stains much less than 9.5 cm, and that conclusion is based solely on the evidence that in the first ten attempts, the blood stained only 4.8 cm. If in the eleventh attempt, the blood stain jumped up to 9.5cm, that calls into question whether the first ten attempts provided for an accurate indication of the higher limits of the stain the defendant's blood could have caused. In other words, that eleventh attempt calls into question the only evidence used to support the conclusion, and therefore calls into question the conclusion as well.
Thanks to all for the insight. It seems that here choice C is right because none of the others are any good. I still have a problem with the idea that something that is still less (like the 11th blood stain) is considered to weaken the arg. I feel that in a test built around precise language, a better/less questionable answer choice should have been supplied. Nothing I can do about it though; just venting. Thanks again for the help.