Home » GMAT » Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen this argument?
DNA evidence has increasingly been used in court to prove guilt and to exonerate the innocent. Because so many convicted felons have been cleared by DNA evidence, all cases in which someone was convicted largely on circumstantial evidence should be called into question and reviewed. Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen this argument?
A. One in three convictions today rests largely on DNA evidence.
B. DNA evidence is admissible even after the statute of limitations has expired.
C. Of every ten cases in which DNA evidence becomes available post-conviction, five convictions are overturned.
D. DNA evidence is 99.8% accurate.
E. DNA evidence is very difficult to falsify or tamper with.
Correct Answer: C
Explanation/Reference:
Explanation:
The fact that would most strengthen this argument is the percentage of cases in which DNA evidence overturned prior convictions. If half of all cases resulted in erroneous convictions that were later cleared by DNA evidence, then that should certainly drawother convictions into doubt. The fact that one in three of today’s convictions rest on DNA evidence has no bearing on prior convictions, so choice a is incorrect. Similarly, the admissibility of DNA evidence (choice b) has no bearing on the quality of prior convictions. That DNA evidence is accurate (choice d) and difficult to tamper with (choice e) strengthens the argument for the use of DNA evidence in court, but it does not directly strengthen the argument that prior convictions should be called into doubt.
|
Download Printable PDF. VALID exam to help you PASS.
|
 |
