PrepTest 116, Section 3, Question 18
In a highly publicized kidnapping case in Ontario,(73 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the local(7 more words not shown)
- Ageneralizes from an(2 more words not shown)
- Btrades on an(8 more words not shown)
- Coverlooks the fact(17 more words not shown)
- Dattempts to support(6 more words not shown)
- Epresumes that the(16 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Interesting to the public isn't the same as good for the public.
I can understand why a judge might keep spectators out of a courtroom. Perhaps their presence would interfere with the trial or create a problem for the jurors. Those are possible reasons; the passage doesn't tell us the judge's specific concern. But they show how excluding spectators could be intended to serve society's interests.
The citizen points out that officials got people interested in the case by asking for help, then accuses them of inconsistency for excluding the public. Wait: getting people curious or involved doesn't establish that letting them watch the trial would benefit the public. “Public interest” has changed meaning between those two uses.
What we’re looking for
Imagine saying you love cranes, meaning the birds, so you must want to operate a crane on a construction site. The repeated word doesn't connect the ideas if it means something different each time. The switch here is subtler, but that's the flaw to look for: the citizen treats public attention and public welfare as though they were the same thing.
Working the answers
- A
The citizen isn't using this case to establish a general rule about all trials. The claim is that the actions in this case are inconsistent. We don't need to decide whether the case is typical to see the mistake in that comparison.
- BCorrect
In arousing public interest, the officials generated public attention and involvement. In serving the public interest, the judge means doing what benefits the public. The citizen's charge works only by blurring those meanings.
Both actions could make sense: asking people for tips might help find the victim, while limiting attendance might protect the later proceedings. We aren't claiming those were the officials' actual reasons. The possibility shows why the change in policy isn't automatically a contradiction.
- C
The judge might be different from the people who asked for help, but that isn't the central problem. The citizen refers broadly to what “they” did. Even if exactly the same officials made both decisions, seeking public assistance and limiting courtroom attendance could still be consistent. The shift in meaning remains.
- D
The citizen offers a comparison between two actions to support a charge of inconsistency. Forceful wording doesn't make the argument a sensationalistic appeal. The identifiable mistake is using the same phrase with different meanings, not offering an alarming claim in place of reasoning.
- E
The citizen doesn't weigh the public's right to know against the defendant's right to a fair trial. The stated conclusion is that the officials' actions are inconsistent. We can explain why that accusation fails without attributing a ranking of rights the citizen never gives.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.