PT48.S4.Q13 - Tagowa's testimony

emmorensemmorens Core Member
edited December 2020 in Logical Reasoning 1470 karma

Okay I'm pretty pissed because I'm pretty sure I got this question wrong for a stupid reason.

AC A says: _Admin Note: I deleted the text as it is against our Forum Rules to post the answer choice text verbatim.

Everything sounded good except for 'in no way implicates the defendant' - is this answer choice basically saying the argument overlooks that a witness may think a defendant is guilty even though their testimony might not match that?

IE: in no way implicates/involves the defendant? As in, maybe they called her in to testify and asked her what she ate for breakfast?

I picked AC B for some reason, I knew the others were wrong which I'm glad about because apparently AC E was a debate for many.

If anyone has tips on matching flawed reasoning when your prephrase is correct (mine matched up perfectly!) but you have trouble navigating abstract terms, that would be helpful!

Thanks!

Admin Note: https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-48-section-4-question-13/

Comments

  • Ashley2018-1Ashley2018-1 Alum Member
    2249 karma

    We just don't know what Tagowa said with regards to Pemberton. The stimulus says her testimony "was not heard outside the classroom" and yet it draws a conclusion about what the jury heard even though we were never shown what she said. As you said, perhaps she was called as a witness to testify about something that made no mention of whether Pemberton was guilty or not. Maybe she was just called to testify about his work performance and if he did well, then she would say just that and make no reference to his guilt so her testimony may not have reflected her beliefs.

  • Ashley2018-1Ashley2018-1 Alum Member
    edited December 2020 2249 karma

    As for B, the argument does not do that. And for E, it did state the jury members disagreed with each other. "Not all of the jury members believed T's testimony."

  • canihazJDcanihazJD Alum Member Sage ⭐
    8491 karma

    @emmorens said:
    If anyone has tips on matching flawed reasoning when your prephrase is correct (mine matched up perfectly!) but you have trouble navigating abstract terms, that would be helpful!

    Thanks!

    Maybe try to ID your flaw an a more abstract way to begin with. That way you can just see if it "fits" a given AC's language. Too specific and an AC that fits but does not match exactly may throw you off.

    Assumption: if she believes the defendant is guilty, she testified in a way that indicated the defendant was guilty.

    The flaw here is that her belief doesn't need to have anything to do with what her testimony was, or more broadly, beliefs don't have to follow from facts, and vice versa.

    AC A just says a witness can think someone is guilty even though their testimony doesn't implicate them.

    It doesn't matter what she testified to, she can believe whatever she wants. So we can't conclude the jury didn't believe her testimony. It could very well have exonerated the defendant, and they totally believed it.

Sign In or Register to comment.