TSA Oxford 2009 Section 1 Question 11 (https://www.admissionstesting.org/Images/99502-tsa-oxford-2009-section-1.pdf)

(https://www.admissionstesting.org/Images/99502-tsa-oxford-2009-section-1.pdf)There is widespread and justified concern about the reliance on expert opinion in law court cases. Where experts disagree on an interpretation of the facts, there is always the possibility that the more charismatic and persuasive expert's opinion will prevail for this reason alone. Their reason for holding the opinions they do could be more to do with their own personal prejudices than their professional expertise. However, if we want justice to be done, we should distinguish sharply between this and expert evidence which is not reliant on interpretation. It would be a tragedy if key advances in tackling crime such as matching DNA were regarded with suspicion just because such evidence came from an expert witness.Which of the following is a statement of the main conclusion in the above argument?A The widespread concern about the use of expert opinion in legal cases is justified.B It would be most regrettable if evidence such as DNA became suspect in legal cases.C In the interests of justice we should distinguish between expert evidence and expert opinion.D Expert opinion may arise from personal views rather than professional knowledge.E Juries may be swayed by the personal characteristics of those presenting expert opinions.In order to answer this question we need to clarify what exactly the argument states. In order to do that we need to separate premise and conclusion and see what steps are taken to get from one to the other. In such an argument the conclusion is (if stated) the sentence which is supported by all the other sentences but not supporting any further sentence itself. t is not always the case that they are neatly sorted so we should have our own go at identifying them. For this we can start at the beginning of the argument.The first two sentences in the argument simply state a fact. Namely that sometimes a piece of evidence might be interpreted in a certain way because one interpretation is presented in a more convincing manner by a more charismatic expert. The third sentence states that this might not be an accurate and unbiased representation of that fact. The fourth sentence states that if we want to justice to be done we should discriminate between opinion and evidence. The reasons for doing so are given in the previous sentences. The last sentence merely states an implication of not discriminating between the two, further supporting the argument made in sentence number four. We can see that all sentences are supporting the statement made in the fourth sentence which is itself not supporting any further statement. This leads us to conclude that the fourth sentence is the conclusion