DLC's were not originally intended to provide a strict comparison between a relevant question (allegation at issue) and an emotion-evoking issue of lying that is unrelated to the allegation. DLC's were intended to provide the examinee an opportunity to demonstrate some physiological capability when answering a question about a common behavior that generally elicits a deceptive answer, while providing additional motivation for the examinee to be alert throughout the examination. Evaluation of the physiological data then included a conservative analysis of overall physiological activity when responding to relevant questions. Thus, the focus of the analysis was not to compare physiological responses to weak control questions with responses to relevant questions, but rather to ensure that the examinee was still responding normally in the measured reactions to deception. Comparative magnitude of the physiological responses between control and relevant questions was not the issue. Although not advocating a strict use of the original technique for using DLC's, this paper supports the validity of the analytical rationale for their use, i.e., to determine the character of the physiological response to DLC's rather than its magnitude compared with relevant questions. 25 references