vikasp99 wrote:
Expert witness: Ten times, and in controlled circumstances, a single drop of the defendant's blood was allowed to fall onto the fabric. And in all ten cases, the stained area was much less than the expected 9.5 cm^2. In fact, the stained area was always between 4.5 and 4.8 cm^2. I conclude that a single drop of the defendant's blood stains much less than 9.5 cm^2 of the fabric.
Which one of the following, if true, most undermines the value of the evidence for the expert witness's conclusion?
A) If similar results had been found after 100 test drops of the defendant's blood, the evidence would be even stronger. This is no strong evidence It is citing a possibility hence cannot weaken
B) Expert witness have sometimes been known to fudge their data to accord with the prosecution's case. Sometimes and a possibility cannot weaken
C) In an eleventh test drop of the defendant's blood, the area stained was also less than 9.5 cm^2 - this time staining 9.3 cm^2. This is a fact and shows that the with more trials the results are deviating . This weakens the argument.
D) Another person's blood was substituted, and in otherwise identical circumstances, stained between 9.8 and 10.6 cm^2 of the fabric. The argument is about defendant's blood not about someone else's. Tempting but Out of scope
E) Not all expert witnesses are the authorities in their fields that they claim to be. a possibility not a weakener