PrepTest 126, Section 3, Question 10
Lawyer: This witness acknowledges being present at the(32 more words not shown)
The lawyer's conclusion follows logically(8 more words not shown)
- AIf a witness(16 more words not shown)
- BThere are other(12 more words not shown)
- CIt is impossible(9 more words not shown)
- DThe testimony of(21 more words not shown)
- EIt is unlikely(9 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Maybe the witness doesn't watch that television show.
Fame doesn't mean everyone recognizes you. The witness could know the assailant because they're roommates or went to school together, while having no idea who the lawyer's client is. That would make the two recognition claims perfectly understandable. It wouldn't by itself show that the witness failed to see the assault.
So the lawyer hasn't explained why this testimony should be excluded. We have a fact about recognizing one person but not the other, followed by a conclusion about what testimony is allowed. Something needs to connect them.
What we’re looking for
The question asks for an assumption that makes the conclusion follow. My first thought is a rule saying that if a witness doesn't recognize someone famous involved in an assault, the testimony must be excluded. That would connect this witness's failure to recognize the client with the lawyer's conclusion. We don't have to think it's a sensible rule for real proceedings; we need a rule that establishes this particular result.
Working the answers
- A
This gives a situation in which testimony should be included: the witness claims to recognize both parties. It doesn't say that's the only way testimony can be included. A witness who recognizes just one person could still qualify under some other rule. A doesn't establish the exclusion we need.
- B
Other witnesses might confirm that the client was there. That doesn't give us a rule for excluding this witness's account. Multiple people could provide relevant testimony about the same event, so the existence of other witnesses doesn't finish the lawyer's argument.
- C
Uncertainty about whether the witness actually recognized the assailant doesn't automatically make the testimony inadmissible. We still need a rule saying that this uncertainty requires exclusion. C adds uncertainty without connecting it to the conclusion.
- DCorrect
This gives a broader rule than my prediction: it applies to both people involved, whether or not either one is famous. Recognizing both parties is now a requirement for including a witness's testimony. This witness claims to recognize the assailant but not the client, so the requirement isn't met. Under D's rule, the testimony should not be included. That's the exact connection from the stated fact to the lawyer's conclusion.
- E
Even if failure to recognize the client were unlikely, unlikely things can happen. More importantly, E doesn't establish what should happen to testimony when they do. It might make the witness's claim seem surprising, but surprise isn't the rule requiring exclusion that we need.
More Sufficient Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Sufficient Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.