PrepTest 107, Section 1, Question 14
Prosecutor: Dr. Yuge has testified that, had the(67 more words not shown)
The prosecutor's reasoning is most(12 more words not shown)
- AKlein may be(19 more words not shown)
- BThe perpetrator may(10 more words not shown)
- CKlein may have(12 more words not shown)
- DWithout having been(13 more words not shown)
- EDuring the robbery(14 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The moon was up. Could its light actually reach the scene?
I can think of several things that might interfere with an identification. A robber could cover their face; Klein could be too far away. But look closely at the prosecutor's conclusion. The specific claim is that there was enough light for a reliable identification. We need to question the lighting, rather than treat every possible identification problem as equally relevant.
The timing is settled: the robbery occurred between 1:15 and 1:30, before the moon set at 1:45. Let's accept that. The gap is between having the moon in the sky and having enough illumination where Klein was looking. Imagine the robbery taking place in an unlit underground parking garage. A bright moon outside wouldn't make that garage bright.
What we’re looking for
We're asked what the prosecutor overlooks. I'd look for something that keeps moonlight from providing enough visibility, even though the robbery occurred before the moon set. A building or clouds could do that. We don't need to dispute the established time to challenge the lighting conclusion.
Working the answers
- A
The passage says the time has been conclusively established. It doesn't merely say Klein guessed the time. Claiming the robbery occurred after moonset contradicts that supplied fact instead of exposing a gap between the accepted facts and the prosecutor's conclusion.
- B
A close resemblance could create an identification problem even under excellent lighting. But it doesn't show a problem with the prosecutor's inference about how much light was available. The relevant gap concerns the conditions for seeing clearly, not every reason a clearly seen face could be confused with someone else's.
- C
Like B, this introduces a separate obstacle to accurate identification while explicitly allowing good light. The prosecutor concludes that the light was sufficient. Klein's emotional state doesn't tell us that the inference from the moon's position to sufficient illumination is mistaken.
- D
Being absent doesn't automatically prevent Dr. Yuge from knowing the lighting conditions. Information about the moon, witness reports, or other evidence could provide knowledge without firsthand observation. This choice declares such knowledge impossible rather than identifying what is missing from the prosecutor's stated reasoning.
- ECorrect
Clouds could block the moonlight. The moon could be full enough to provide considerable light and still fail to illuminate the scene adequately because that light is obstructed. This preserves the facts about the moon and the robbery's time while challenging the step to 'enough light.' It is the direct objection we wanted.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.