"The dose makes the poison" is your discipline's first principle — and opposing counsel's favorite weapon. If you can't quantify the exposure, every causation opinion floats. This AI examiner runs the dose-first cross out loud, presses the general-to-specific causation bridge, and scores you on the post-2023 FRE 702 rubric.
Start a free toxicology mock deposition → How the expert trainer worksToxic-tort causation is the most heavily Daubert-litigated territory in federal court, and the attack pattern is settled: establish that dose-response is fundamental, establish that the expert never quantified this plaintiff's dose, then collapse the bridge from "can cause" to "did cause."
The examiner in this trainer runs that canon — plus the regulatory-limit conflation, the animal-extrapolation problem, and the Bradford Hill walk-through most experts can wave at but not perform under pressure.
A causation opinion with no exposure reconstruction — no sampling data, no biomonitoring, no modeling. "Significant exposure" is not a number.
Literature establishing the agent can cause the disease, offered as proof it did cause it in this plaintiff — the bridge never built.
An OSHA or EPA exceedance treated as proof of harm — then the concession that regulatory limits are precautionary, not causation thresholds.
Smoking, genetics, and competing exposures "considered" but never ruled out by any stated, reproducible method.
High-dose rodent studies extrapolated to low-dose human exposure without addressing dose scaling or interspecies differences.
The criteria invoked as a talisman — but under questioning, the factor-by-factor application to this record isn't there.
The examiner gets you to endorse your own discipline's first principle — then measures your file against it.
Why this lands: If the answer is no, the opinion contradicts the principle you endorsed sixty seconds earlier — the cleanest impeachment arc in toxic-tort practice. The prepared witness has the exposure-reconstruction methodology and its accepted status ready before the trap closes. The trainer runs it until you do.
You enter your discipline and case type — occupational, environmental, pharmaceutical — and a realistic AI examiner cross-examines you out loud on dose reconstruction, the general-to-specific causation bridge, differential etiology rigor, and literature selection. Every session ends with a 5-axis FRE 702/Daubert scorecard. Unlimited private reps.
Unquantified dose, conflating regulatory exceedance with causation, extrapolating animal or high-dose data without addressing scaling, differential etiology without a stated method, and Bradford Hill invoked but not applied. Toxic-tort exclusion opinions are the deepest Daubert case law there is — the attacks are well-rehearsed. Your answers should be too.
Courts have accepted reconstruction and modeling approaches when the methodology is disclosed, uses stated inputs, and acknowledges uncertainty. What gets excluded is "significant exposure" as a conclusion without a method. The trainer drills presenting your reconstruction as methodology rather than impression.
Your first full AI mock deposition is free — no credit card. After that: a $99 one-time 30-day pass with unlimited sessions before a specific deposition, or Expert Pro at $39/mo if you are deposed regularly.
Yes. Sessions are private by default and are not shared with retaining counsel, opposing counsel, or anyone else. This is educational deposition practice, not legal advice — always follow the guidance of retaining counsel, and don't enter confidential case identifiers.
Your first full AI mock deposition is free — no credit card. Enter your field, get cross-examined out loud, and read your Daubert scorecard in about ten minutes.
Start your free mock deposition → Compare training options