If there is a discrepancy in scores for a beer, who should the lower-ranked judges yield to?

The correct choice emphasizes the need for expertise in the evaluation process. In a beer judging scenario, it is essential that the opinions of judges are guided by the experience and knowledge of those who are deemed most qualified. The highest-ranked BJCP judge typically possesses a greater level of training, expertise, and a comprehensive understanding of the judging criteria and style guidelines compared to lower-ranked judges. Because of this heightened understanding, their scores and evaluations are generally considered more authoritative and reflective of the established standards.

This systemical deference to the highest-ranked judge helps ensure that discrepancies in scoring are resolved based on experience rather than consensus among peers who may have variable levels of expertise. Not all judges may be familiar with certain styles or subtleties of beer characteristics, making the input of the highest-ranking judge crucial in guiding the final discussion and scoring.

In practice, this method not only upholds the credibility of the judging process but also fosters an environment where less experienced judges can learn from the higher-ranked individual's insights and rationale regarding specific aspects of the beer being judged.