PrepTest 124, Section 3, Question 17
Lawyer: A body of circumstantial evidence is like(73 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the lawyer's(12 more words not shown)
- Atakes for granted(25 more words not shown)
- Bpresumes, without providing(23 more words not shown)
- Cfails to consider(22 more words not shown)
- Doffers an analogy(17 more words not shown)
- Edraws a conclusion(11 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Losing three pieces of evidence out of a hundred might not be a disaster. Losing three out of five could be a very different story.
I understand the lawyer's comparison: several strands can make a stronger rope, just as several pieces of evidence can make a stronger case. But we need to know more before carrying over the claim that losing a few pieces won't matter much.
Are the pieces equally important? A distinctive glove found at the scene could matter far more than the fact that a suspect didn't send messages that evening. Discrediting the glove evidence could remove the main reason the other details seemed suspicious. Or finding that evidence was collected carelessly might make us question other items collected the same way.
What we’re looking for
For the flaw question, I'd look for an important difference between the rope and the body of evidence. Counting how many pieces remain isn't enough if the pieces we've lost carried much of the case. The analogy needs support at that point, even if its initial comparison makes sense.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Some items could be much more important than others. The lawyer assumes that losing a few leaves the basic strength intact, but what if those few include the crucial evidence? A case with many remaining details could be much weaker after its central support is discredited. This identifies why treating the pieces like interchangeable strands can fail.
- B
The lawyer doesn't claim that the whole body is weaker than the sum of its parts. The passage says adding evidence strengthens the body of evidence, but it doesn't assign numerical strengths or establish this less-than relationship. B attributes a different assumption instead of identifying the unsupported claim about losing a few items.
- C
The conclusion concerns a few discredited items. The lawyer could agree that discrediting many items would destroy the case and still make the argument given. C changes the amount of evidence lost. A is better because even a few items can matter greatly if they are the crucial ones.
- D
The lawyer does identify similarities: both things have components, and adding components strengthens the whole. The problem isn't an analogy with no similarities at all. It's that those similarities don't establish the further claim about what happens when particular components are lost.
- E
The conclusion about discredited evidence isn't simply repeated as its own support. The lawyer first describes what happens to a rope when a strand breaks, then applies that comparison to evidence. That move may be flawed, but it is an attempted inference from an analogy, not a conclusion supporting itself.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.