A.I. Explanation:

Option 1: "Forensic psychologist is a type of legal expert that can solve issues involving a case even before the defendant or the plaintiff have been properly represented."

Explanation: The text emphasizes the role of forensic psychologists in evaluating individuals involved in court cases, indicating their expertise in understanding psychological aspects that can influence legal proceedings. The phrase 'can solve issues involving a case' aligns with the author's view that forensic psychologists contribute significantly to the legal process, not limited to criminal cases. This reflects the main idea that forensic psychology plays a crucial role in the legal system, supporting the assertion that they can address issues before formal representation occurs.

Option 2: "A forensic expert's opinion may help a lawyer win a case even if the crime is committed by someone else."

Explanation: This option suggests that a forensic expert's opinion can influence a case unrelated to the crime committed, which is not supported by the text. The text focuses on the role of forensic psychologists in evaluating participants in court cases, rather than implying that their opinions can assist in cases where the crime is not directly related to the defendant or plaintiff. Thus, this statement misrepresents the context and scope of forensic psychology.

Option 3: "Forensic experts not only need to study theory, since research work and practical experience matter more."

Explanation: While the text mentions that forensic psychologists are trained in various psychological fields, it does not specifically state that practical experience is more important than theoretical knowledge. This option introduces a comparative element that is not present in the text. The author does not prioritize one aspect of training over another, making this statement an inaccurate summary of the author's opinion.

Option 4: "Any lawyer fighting a criminal litigation needs a forensic expert, or he might lose the case."

Explanation: This option implies that the presence of a forensic expert is mandatory for success in criminal litigation, which is not supported by the text. The text discusses the involvement of forensic psychologists in various types of cases, not exclusively criminal ones, and does not assert that lawyers will lose cases without them. This statement exaggerates the necessity of forensic experts in legal proceedings, making it an incorrect interpretation of the author's viewpoint.