context: With regard to this aspect of her testimony, there is "simply too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion proffered." Untested hypotheses, even if plausible, are insufficient to satisfy Rule 702.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 620 F.3d 665, 670
citation_a.parenthetical: explaining that a "working hypothesis" is not "admissible scientific knowledge"
citation_a.sentence: Rider v. Sandoz Pharm. Corp., 295 F.3d 1194, 1202 (11th Cir.2002) (“The courtroom is not the place for scientific guesswork, even of the inspired sort.”); see Tamraz v. Lincoln Elec. Co., 620 F.3d 665, 670 (6th Cir.2010) (explaining that a “working hypothesis” is not “admissible scientific knowledge”).
citation_b.signal: no signal
citation_b.identifier: 295 F.3d 1194, 1202
citation_b.parenthetical: "The courtroom is not the place for scientific guesswork, even of the inspired sort."
citation_b.sentence: Rider v. Sandoz Pharm. Corp., 295 F.3d 1194, 1202 (11th Cir.2002) (“The courtroom is not the place for scientific guesswork, even of the inspired sort.”); see Tamraz v. Lincoln Elec. Co., 620 F.3d 665, 670 (6th Cir.2010) (explaining that a “working hypothesis” is not “admissible scientific knowledge”).