LSAT 143 – Section 3 – Question 10

LSAT 143 - Section 3 - Question 10

June 2015

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Target time: 1:00

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question QuickView	Type	Tags	Answer Choices	Curve	Question Difficulty	Psg/Game/S Difficulty	Explanation
PT143 S3 Q10	+LR	Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw	A 2% 155 B 18% 162 C 75% 165 D 4% 158 E 1% 151	131 147 163	+Medium	147.721 +SubsectionMedium

Television host: While it’s true that the defendant presented a strong alibi and considerable exculpatory evidence and was quickly acquitted by the jury, I still believe that there must be good reason to think that the defendant is not completely innocent in the case. Otherwise, the prosecutor would not have brought charges in the first place.

Summarize Argument

The author concludes that there must be good reason to think the defendant is not completely innocent. This is based on the author’s belief that the prosecutor would not have brought charges if the defendant were completely innocent.

Identify and Describe Flaw

The author assumes that the charging decision of the prosecutor constitutes evidence that the defendant isn’t completely innocent. This overlooks the possibility that the charging decision might indicate nothing about the defendant’s guilt. For example, perhaps the charging decision is based on mistaken or fraudulent evidence. Or maybe the decision is corrupt and merely used to threaten and harass the defendant. We simply have no idea whether the charging decision is indicative of guilt.

takes lack of evidence for a view as grounds for concluding that the view is false

The author’s premise is that the prosecutor brought charges. It’s not asserting a lack of evidence for the view that the defendant is innocent.

presupposes as evidence the conclusion that it is trying to establish

(B) describes circular reasoning. The author’s conclusion isn’t presupposed as evidence. The conclusion is that the defendant is not completely innocent. The evidence is the fact that the prosecutor brought charges. These aren’t the same idea.

places undue reliance on the judgments of an authority figure

The author places undue reliance on the charging decision of the prosecutor. There’s no compelling reason to believe that the defendant is guilty simply because of the prosecutor’s judgment that the defendant is guilty. We have to evaluate the evidence.

confuses legal standards for guilt with moral standards for guilt

It’s not clear whether the author means innocent in a legal sense or a moral sense, but regardless, it doesn’t matter, because the author never shifts between the two ideas. The flaw isn’t based on the difference between legal/moral standards.

concludes that a judgment is suspicious merely on the grounds that it was reached quickly

The author doesn’t argue that the jury’s decision is suspicious because it was reached quickly.

LSAT 143 – Section 3 – Question 10

LSAT 143 - Section 3 - Question 10

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 143 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Leave a Reply Cancel