Passage Summary: An analyst thinks DNA evidence should be banned in court because scientists are still arguing about how reliable it is, and the analyst believes we need total agreement before using such tests.

Conclusion: Courts should not allow DNA tests to be used as evidence in criminal cases.

Reasoning: There is significant disagreement among experts regarding the reliability of DNA tests, and courts should only admit evidence when there is a broad scientific consensus.

Analysis: The analyst assumes that 'considerable controversy' is the same thing as a lack of 'widespread agreement.' It is possible for a small, vocal group of experts to create controversy even if the vast majority of the scientific community actually agrees on the test's reliability. Look for an answer that highlights this gap between 'some disagreement' and 'no general consensus.' The analyst might be letting a few loud voices drown out a very real scientific majority.