A
does not address the arguments advanced by the politician’s opponents
The opponents argue “on theoretical grounds” in favor of reducing social spending. The politician fails to show why those theoretical grounds are unpersuasive, or why the opponents’ argument is flawed. This makes the politician’s argument unconvincing.
B
makes an attack on the character of opponents
The politician doesn’t attack the opponents’ character. He criticizes the focus of their argument, but the focus of an argument is not part of one’s character.
C
takes for granted that deficit spending has just one cause
The politician describes the “main cause” of deficit spending. This doesn’t suggest the author believes deficit spending has only one cause. There can be other causes; the politicians identifies what he views to be the main one.
D
portrays opponents’ views as more extreme than they really are
We don’t have any indication that the politician’s description of the opponents’ argument makes the opponents’ position more extreme. All we know is that the opponents’ argument is based on “theoretical grounds.” We don’t know whether this exaggerates the opponents’ position.
E
fails to make clear what counts as excessive spending
The specific level of spending that constitutes “excessive” is not relevant. The opponents argue that there is too much social spending, and the politician responds that we should not reduce social spending. Nothing requires the politician to specify a particular dollar amount.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that trial by jury isn’t a fair way to settle disputes involving scientific or technical issues. This is because people who have special knowledge of these issues are systematically excluded from juries.
Notable Assumptions
The author believes that a trial is unfair if people with relevant knowledge are systematically excluded from sitting on juries in those trials. This means the author assumes that fair trials cannot intentionally exclude people whose knowledge may be relevant to the trial.
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 seems to strengthen the author’s argument. We’re looking for something that tells us juries are still fair even when they exclude people with relevant knowledge.
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.
Special knowledge actually renders a trial jury less fair, since the member with special knowledge is more likely to be prejudiced towards one party before the trial even starts. Thus, there’s a good reason why such people are systematically excluded.
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.
The author never mentions impartial arbitrators. Even if those were the only other option, jury trials might still be unfair.
D
Experts who give testimony on scientific or technical issues tend to hedge their conclusions by discussing the possibility of error.
What effect does this have on jurors? Without more information, we can’t say this weakens the author’s claim that jury trials are unfair.
E
Expert witnesses in specialized fields often command fees that are so high that many people involved in litigation cannot afford their services.
Feasibility is beside the point. Besides, we don’t care about witnesses—we care about jurors.