PrepTest 119, Section 3, Question 4
Detective: Bill has been accused of committing the(28 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the detective's(12 more words not shown)
- Atreats evidence that(11 more words not shown)
- Bmerely attacks the(4 more words not shown)
- Cfails to provide(10 more words not shown)
- Dtreats a lack(9 more words not shown)
- Efails to establish(6 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Maybe Bill committed the burglary without anyone seeing him. That possibility is enough to expose the problem. No witness placing him near the warehouse isn't the same as proof that he wasn't there.
What we’re looking for
The detective moves from “no one saw Bill” to “Bill did not do it.” We don't know whether Bill is guilty or innocent. We know only that this particular evidence against him is missing. For the flaw question, I'd look for an answer describing that unjustified move from missing evidence to a definite conclusion of innocence.
Working the answers
- A
Whether anyone saw Bill near the warehouse could be relevant to identifying the burglar. An eyewitness placing him there might matter; the lack of one can also be part of the investigation. The problem is treating that absence as enough to settle the question. Relevant evidence needn't be conclusive evidence.
- B
The detective says nothing about the accusers' character. We aren't told that they are dishonest, unreliable, or otherwise bad people. The argument relies on nobody having seen Bill nearby, not on attacking the people who accused him.
- C
The detective is trying to establish that Bill did not commit the burglary. Failing to prove the opposite position isn't the defect in that argument. We should ask whether the offered reason establishes innocence, and it doesn't: Bill could have avoided being seen.
- DCorrect
The missing eyewitness evidence is treated as though it clears Bill. But a person can commit a burglary without being observed near the scene. The absence of that evidence leaves open both possibilities: Bill did it unseen, or Bill didn't do it.
The argument hasn't earned its definite conclusion. That doesn't mean we should conclude Bill is guilty instead; it means this reason doesn't establish that he is innocent.
- E
The detective doesn't have to identify the actual burglar to establish that Bill wasn't the burglar. For example, evidence placing Bill somewhere else could rule him out without telling us who committed the crime. The failure here is the insufficient reason for ruling Bill out, not the lack of an alternative suspect.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.