PT143.S3.Q10 > 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

SECTION 2 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7

PASSAGE 2

Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14

PASSAGE 3

Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20

PASSAGE 4

Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

SECTION 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · lr

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.

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.

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.

(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.

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.

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.

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

PrepTest 143 - Section 3 - Question 10

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action