PT103.S1.Q5 > Question

SECTION 1 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

SECTION 2 · lr

SECTION 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5

PASSAGE 2

Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13

PASSAGE 3

Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21

PASSAGE 4

Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

This is an usual stimulus because there’s no argument. Instead, we have a claim and a reply to that claim.

Attorneys’ claim: The government destroyed evidence that would have supported the defendant.

Government’s reply: There is presently no evidence that supports the defendant.

There are no assumptions, because there’s no argument here. But notice that the government’s reply doesn’t actually address the point made by the attorneys. The attorneys’ point is that there was once supporting evidence, before it was destroyed. But the government’s response is all about the present situation—there’s now no supporting evidence. This leaves open the possibility that the attorneys are right: the government destroyed the evidence, which is why it no longer exists.

The government’s reply is all about the present situation—there’s now no supporting evidence. This is completely consistent with the attorneys’ claim that there was once evidence, but the government destroyed it. So the question remains: did the government destroy that evidence?

The attorney’s charge is all about what happened in the past, while the government’s reply is solely about the present situation. So, the government’s reply does nothing to counter the attorneys’ charge.

The government’s reply might be true—there might currently be no evidence in the government’s files (or anywhere else) to support the defendant. We don’t know. So we can’t conclude that the government failed to search for evidence.

The attorney’s charge is all about what happened in the past, while the government’s reply is solely about the present situation. So, even if the government’s reply is true, it does nothing to counter the attorneys’ charge.

PrepTest 103 - Section 1 - Question 5

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action